Protocols and Pathways in Pediatric Critical Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Danielle K Maue, L Denise Willis, Jesslyn Lenox, Joel Glogowski, Lynda Goodfellow, Benjamin White, Samer Abu-Sultaneh, Andrew Miller
{"title":"Protocols and Pathways in Pediatric Critical Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Danielle K Maue, L Denise Willis, Jesslyn Lenox, Joel Glogowski, Lynda Goodfellow, Benjamin White, Samer Abu-Sultaneh, Andrew Miller","doi":"10.1089/respcare.12885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Pediatric critical asthma is one of the most frequent reasons for presentation to the emergency department and admission to the floor or pediatric ICU (PICU) in pediatric patients. Clinical pathways and protocols have been used frequently in respiratory care, and many have been associated with an improvement in outcomes. We performed a systematic review on the use of protocols or pathways in the treatment of critical asthma. <b>Methods:</b> MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL were searched with no date limits; last search was completed in July 2024 to identify randomized controlled trials, crossover studies, observational studies, and quality improvement (QI) studies comparing the use of a protocol or pathway in the treatment of pediatric critical asthma to the standard of care. Abstracts were screened by a subgroup of the clinical practice guidelines committee, and subsequently full-text articles were screened and data were extracted. A fixed-effect meta-analysis was performed for each outcome. <b>Results:</b> We included 23 studies, with the majority being observational or QI studies. The outcomes included in this analysis were hospital stay, PICU stay, intubation rate, noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) usage, and rate of escalation of respiratory support. Use of clinical pathways and/or protocols was associated with a shorter hospital stay (mean difference [MD] -0.77 d [95% CI -0.81 to -0.73]) and PICU stay (MD -0.31 d [95% CI -0.37 to -0.26]). There was a decreased incidence of the need for increased respiratory support (odds ratio [OR] 0.59 [95% CI 0.39-0.59]). There was no change in the need for intubation (OR 0.4 [95% CI 0.12-1.34]) or incidence of NRS usage (OR 1.12 [95% CI 0.76-1.63]). <b>Conclusions:</b> Pediatric asthma protocols were associated with reductions in hospital stay, PICU stay, and decreased need for respiratory support escalation but not intubation or NRS use.</p>","PeriodicalId":21125,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/respcare.12885","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Pediatric critical asthma is one of the most frequent reasons for presentation to the emergency department and admission to the floor or pediatric ICU (PICU) in pediatric patients. Clinical pathways and protocols have been used frequently in respiratory care, and many have been associated with an improvement in outcomes. We performed a systematic review on the use of protocols or pathways in the treatment of critical asthma. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL were searched with no date limits; last search was completed in July 2024 to identify randomized controlled trials, crossover studies, observational studies, and quality improvement (QI) studies comparing the use of a protocol or pathway in the treatment of pediatric critical asthma to the standard of care. Abstracts were screened by a subgroup of the clinical practice guidelines committee, and subsequently full-text articles were screened and data were extracted. A fixed-effect meta-analysis was performed for each outcome. Results: We included 23 studies, with the majority being observational or QI studies. The outcomes included in this analysis were hospital stay, PICU stay, intubation rate, noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) usage, and rate of escalation of respiratory support. Use of clinical pathways and/or protocols was associated with a shorter hospital stay (mean difference [MD] -0.77 d [95% CI -0.81 to -0.73]) and PICU stay (MD -0.31 d [95% CI -0.37 to -0.26]). There was a decreased incidence of the need for increased respiratory support (odds ratio [OR] 0.59 [95% CI 0.39-0.59]). There was no change in the need for intubation (OR 0.4 [95% CI 0.12-1.34]) or incidence of NRS usage (OR 1.12 [95% CI 0.76-1.63]). Conclusions: Pediatric asthma protocols were associated with reductions in hospital stay, PICU stay, and decreased need for respiratory support escalation but not intubation or NRS use.

儿童危重哮喘的治疗方案和途径:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景:儿童危重哮喘是儿科患者就诊于急诊科和住院楼层或儿科ICU (PICU)的最常见原因之一。临床途径和方案已在呼吸保健中经常使用,并且许多已与预后的改善有关。我们对危重哮喘治疗方案或途径的使用进行了系统回顾。方法:检索MEDLINE、Embase和CINAHL,无日期限制;最后一次检索于2024年7月完成,以确定随机对照试验、交叉研究、观察性研究和质量改进(QI)研究,比较在儿科危重哮喘治疗中使用的方案或途径与标准护理的比较。摘要由临床实践指南委员会的一个小组进行筛选,随后对全文文章进行筛选并提取数据。对每个结果进行固定效应荟萃分析。结果:我们纳入了23项研究,其中大多数是观察性或QI研究。该分析的结果包括住院时间、PICU住院时间、插管率、无创呼吸支持(NRS)使用和呼吸支持升级率。临床途径和/或方案的使用与较短的住院时间(平均差异[MD] -0.77 d [95% CI -0.81至-0.73])和PICU住院时间(MD -0.31 d [95% CI -0.37至-0.26])相关。需要增加呼吸支持的发生率降低(优势比[OR] 0.59 [95% CI 0.39-0.59])。插管需求(OR 0.4 [95% CI 0.12-1.34])和NRS使用发生率(OR 1.12 [95% CI 0.76-1.63])均无变化。结论:儿童哮喘治疗方案与住院时间、PICU住院时间和呼吸支持升级需求减少相关,但与插管或NRS使用无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Respiratory care
Respiratory care 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
16.00%
发文量
209
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: RESPIRATORY CARE is the official monthly science journal of the American Association for Respiratory Care. It is indexed in PubMed and included in ISI''s Web of Science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信