scholarly journals Effect of mechanical ventilation in the prone position on clinical outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2008 ◽  
Vol 178 (9) ◽  
pp. 1153-1161 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Sud ◽  
M. Sud ◽  
J. O. Friedrich ◽  
N. K.J. Adhikari
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Prone Position ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

Noninvasive ventilation in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Response to letter

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 310
Author(s):  
Paula G. David-João ◽  
Murilo H. Guedes ◽  
Alvaro Réa-Neto ◽  
Viviane B. de Oliveira Chaiben ◽  
Cristina P. Baena
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Noninvasive Ventilation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

Noninvasive ventilation in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 49 ◽  
pp. 84-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula G. David-João ◽  
Murilo H. Guedes ◽  
Álvaro Réa-Neto ◽  
Viviane B. de Oliveira Chaiben ◽  
Cristina P. Baena
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Noninvasive Ventilation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

scholarly journals Non-Invasive Oxygenation Strategies in Adult Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure: A Protocol for a Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno Leonel Ferreyro ◽  
Federico Angriman ◽  
Laveena Munshi ◽  
Lorenzo del Sorbo ◽  
Niall D Ferguson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure ◽  
Non Invasive

Abstract Background: Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is one of the leading causes of intensive care unit admission and associated with high mortality. Non-invasive oxygenation strategies such as high flow nasal cannula, standard oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation (delivered by either face mask or helmet interface) are widely available interventions applied in these patients. It remains unclear which of these interventions are more effective in decreasing rates of invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality. The primary objective of this network meta-analysis is to summarize the evidence and compare the effect of non-invasive oxygenation strategies on mortality and need for invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Methods: We will search key databases for randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of non-invasive oxygenation strategies in adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. We will exclude studies in which the primary focus is either acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or cardiogenic pulmonary edema. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality (longest available up to 90 days). The secondary outcomes will be receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation (longest available up to 30 days). We will assess the risk of bias for each of the outcomes using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Bayesian network meta-analyses will be conducted to obtain pooled estimates of head-to-head comparisons. We will report pairwise and network meta-analysis treatment effect estimates as risk ratios and 95% credible intervals. Subgroup analyses will be conducted examining key populations including immunocompromised hosts. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted by excluding those studies with high risk of bias and different etiologies of acute respiratory failure. We will assess certainty in effect estimates using GRADE methodology. Discussion : This study will help to guide clinical decision making when caring for adult patients with AHRF and improve our understanding of the limitations of the available literature assessing noninvasive oxygenation strategies in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

Noninvasive ventilation in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
pp. 404
Author(s):  
Paula Geraldes David João ◽  
Álvaro Réa-Neto ◽  
Cristina Pellegrino Baena ◽  
Murilo Guedes ◽  
Viviane Bernardes de Oliveira Chaiben ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Noninvasive Ventilation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

scholarly journals Awake prone positioning in non-intubated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Pavlov ◽  
Hangyong He ◽  
Bairbre McNicholas ◽  
Yonatan Perez ◽  
Elsa Tavernier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Intubation Rate ◽  
Prone Positioning ◽  
Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background: Awake prone positioning (APP) has been advocated to improve oxygenation and prevent intubations of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This paper aims to synthesize the available evidence on the efficacy of APP.Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to compare oxygenation parameters in-hospital intubation rate in patients treated with APP or with standard care.Results: A total of 46 published and 4 unpublished observational studies that included 2994 patients were included. APP was associated with significant improvement of various oxygenation parameters in 19 studies (n=381) that reported this outcome. The intubation rate was 27% (95%CI, 19 to 37%) in the 870 patients treated with APP, as compared to 30% (95%CI, 20 to 42%) in the 852 patients treated with usual care (p=0.71).Conclusions: On the basis of the available evidence, it is not possible to demonstrate efficacy of APP for patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure, as assessed by the need for invasive ventilation. Routine implementation of APP outside of a clinical trial is not supported by current evidence. Randomized controlled clinical studies are urgently needed to definitively assess the utility of APP in these patients.Registered on PROSPERO on August 3d, 2020, CRD42020201947.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document