术后肺部并发症综合结局的Win Ratio方法:对三个随机临床试验的统一和汇总数据库的二次分析。

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Ary Serpa Neto, Niklas S Campos, Thomas Bluth, Sabrine N T Hemmes, Carlos Ferrando, Julian Librero, Marina Soro, Lorenzo Ball, Guido Mazzinari, Marcelo Gama de Abreu, Marcus J Schultz
{"title":"术后肺部并发症综合结局的Win Ratio方法:对三个随机临床试验的统一和汇总数据库的二次分析。","authors":"Ary Serpa Neto, Niklas S Campos, Thomas Bluth, Sabrine N T Hemmes, Carlos Ferrando, Julian Librero, Marina Soro, Lorenzo Ball, Guido Mazzinari, Marcelo Gama de Abreu, Marcus J Schultz","doi":"10.1097/EJA.0000000000002116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The win ratio analysis method might provide new insight on the impact of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim is to re-analyse the results of the 'Re-evaluation of the effects of high PEEP with recruitment manoeuvres vs. low PEEP without recruitment manoeuvres during general anaesthesia for surgery' (REPEAT) study using the win ratio analysis.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Individual patient data meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Three international multicentre randomised trials.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Patients undergoing general anaesthesia for surgery.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>High vs. low PEEP.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measure: </strong>Hierarchical composite endpoint of: all-cause hospital mortality; hospital length of stay; need for postoperative mechanical ventilation; severe pulmonary complications; and mild pulmonary complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 3774 patients undergoing general anaesthesia for surgery were included in this analysis. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 57 [45 to 68] years and 2077 (55%) were women. A total of 3 560 720 comparison pairs were produced. The high PEEP group had a higher percentage of losses than wins in hospital mortality (1.1 vs. 0.9%) and hospital length of stay (33.8 vs. 33.2%), comparable percentages of losses and wins in postoperative invasive mechanical ventilation (0.2 vs. 0.2%), a higher percentage of wins in severe complications (2.5 vs. 2.1%) and a higher percentage of ties in mild complications (18.7 vs. 3.9% wins vs. 3.3% losses). The win ratio for high PEEP compared with low PEEP group was 1.00 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.09).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No beneficial effects of high PEEP compared with low PEEP were found in this win ratio analysis.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Clinicaltrials.gov (study identifier NCT03937375).</p>","PeriodicalId":11920,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Win Ratio approach for the composite outcome of postoperative pulmonary complications: Secondary analysis of a harmonised and pooled database of three randomised clinical trials.\",\"authors\":\"Ary Serpa Neto, Niklas S Campos, Thomas Bluth, Sabrine N T Hemmes, Carlos Ferrando, Julian Librero, Marina Soro, Lorenzo Ball, Guido Mazzinari, Marcelo Gama de Abreu, Marcus J Schultz\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/EJA.0000000000002116\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The win ratio analysis method might provide new insight on the impact of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim is to re-analyse the results of the 'Re-evaluation of the effects of high PEEP with recruitment manoeuvres vs. low PEEP without recruitment manoeuvres during general anaesthesia for surgery' (REPEAT) study using the win ratio analysis.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Individual patient data meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Three international multicentre randomised trials.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Patients undergoing general anaesthesia for surgery.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>High vs. low PEEP.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measure: </strong>Hierarchical composite endpoint of: all-cause hospital mortality; hospital length of stay; need for postoperative mechanical ventilation; severe pulmonary complications; and mild pulmonary complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 3774 patients undergoing general anaesthesia for surgery were included in this analysis. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 57 [45 to 68] years and 2077 (55%) were women. A total of 3 560 720 comparison pairs were produced. The high PEEP group had a higher percentage of losses than wins in hospital mortality (1.1 vs. 0.9%) and hospital length of stay (33.8 vs. 33.2%), comparable percentages of losses and wins in postoperative invasive mechanical ventilation (0.2 vs. 0.2%), a higher percentage of wins in severe complications (2.5 vs. 2.1%) and a higher percentage of ties in mild complications (18.7 vs. 3.9% wins vs. 3.3% losses). The win ratio for high PEEP compared with low PEEP group was 1.00 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.09).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No beneficial effects of high PEEP compared with low PEEP were found in this win ratio analysis.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Clinicaltrials.gov (study identifier NCT03937375).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11920,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Anaesthesiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Anaesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000002116\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000002116","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究背景:采用温比分析方法对呼气末正压(PEEP)对临床预后的影响有新的认识。目的:目的是利用胜比分析重新分析“手术全麻期间高PEEP与低PEEP合并合并效果的再评估”(REPEAT)研究结果。设计:个体患者数据荟萃分析。环境:三个国际多中心随机试验。参与者:接受手术全身麻醉的患者。干预:高PEEP vs低PEEP。主要结局指标:分级综合终点:全因医院死亡率;住院时间;术后需要机械通气;严重的肺部并发症;还有轻微的肺部并发症。结果:共有3774例手术全麻患者被纳入本分析。年龄中位数(四分位数间距[IQR])为57岁[45至68岁],其中2077例(55%)为女性。共制作了3 560 720对比较配对。高PEEP组在医院死亡率(1.1比0.9%)和住院时间(33.8比33.2%)方面的损失百分比高于胜利百分比,在术后有创机械通气方面的损失百分比和胜利百分比相当(0.2比0.2%),在严重并发症方面的胜利百分比较高(2.5比2.1%),在轻度并发症方面的平局百分比较高(18.7比3.9%胜利比3.3%失败)。高PEEP组与低PEEP组的胜比为1.00 (95% CI 0.92 ~ 1.09)。结论:与低正压相比,高正压没有任何有益的效果。注册:Clinicaltrials.gov(研究编号NCT03937375)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Win Ratio approach for the composite outcome of postoperative pulmonary complications: Secondary analysis of a harmonised and pooled database of three randomised clinical trials.

Background: The win ratio analysis method might provide new insight on the impact of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on clinical outcomes.

Objective: The aim is to re-analyse the results of the 'Re-evaluation of the effects of high PEEP with recruitment manoeuvres vs. low PEEP without recruitment manoeuvres during general anaesthesia for surgery' (REPEAT) study using the win ratio analysis.

Design: Individual patient data meta-analysis.

Setting: Three international multicentre randomised trials.

Participants: Patients undergoing general anaesthesia for surgery.

Intervention: High vs. low PEEP.

Main outcome measure: Hierarchical composite endpoint of: all-cause hospital mortality; hospital length of stay; need for postoperative mechanical ventilation; severe pulmonary complications; and mild pulmonary complications.

Results: A total of 3774 patients undergoing general anaesthesia for surgery were included in this analysis. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 57 [45 to 68] years and 2077 (55%) were women. A total of 3 560 720 comparison pairs were produced. The high PEEP group had a higher percentage of losses than wins in hospital mortality (1.1 vs. 0.9%) and hospital length of stay (33.8 vs. 33.2%), comparable percentages of losses and wins in postoperative invasive mechanical ventilation (0.2 vs. 0.2%), a higher percentage of wins in severe complications (2.5 vs. 2.1%) and a higher percentage of ties in mild complications (18.7 vs. 3.9% wins vs. 3.3% losses). The win ratio for high PEEP compared with low PEEP group was 1.00 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.09).

Conclusion: No beneficial effects of high PEEP compared with low PEEP were found in this win ratio analysis.

Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (study identifier NCT03937375).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
351
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA) publishes original work of high scientific quality in the field of anaesthesiology, pain, emergency medicine and intensive care. Preference is given to experimental work or clinical observation in man, and to laboratory work of clinical relevance. The journal also publishes commissioned reviews by an authority, editorials, invited commentaries, special articles, pro and con debates, and short reports (correspondences, case reports, short reports of clinical studies).
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信