covid -19相关急性呼吸窘迫综合征呼气末正压测定:系统综述

Alexandra Sachkova, Marike Andreas, Daniel Heise, Martin Golinski, Caspar Stephani, Steffen Dickel, Clemens Grimm, Ina Monsef, Vanessa Piechotta, Nicole Skoetz, Sven Laudi, Onnen Moerer
{"title":"covid -19相关急性呼吸窘迫综合征呼气末正压测定:系统综述","authors":"Alexandra Sachkova, Marike Andreas, Daniel Heise, Martin Golinski, Caspar Stephani, Steffen Dickel, Clemens Grimm, Ina Monsef, Vanessa Piechotta, Nicole Skoetz, Sven Laudi, Onnen Moerer","doi":"10.1097/EA9.0000000000000060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The impact of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) ventilation and the optimization of PEEP titration in COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) continues to be a subject of debate. In this systematic review, we investigated the effects of varying PEEP settings on patients with severe ARDS primarily resulting from COVID-19 (C-ARDS).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Does higher or lower PEEP improve the outcomes in COVID-19 ARDS? Does individually titrated PEEP lead to better outcomes compared with PEEP set by standardised (low and high ARDS network PEEP tables) approaches? Does the individually set PEEP (best PEEP) differ from PEEP set according to the standardised approaches (low and high ARDS network PEEP tables)?</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review of observational studies without metaanalysis.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We performed an extensive systematic literature search in Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (CCSR), PubMed, Embase.com, Web of Science Core Collection, World Health Organization COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), medRxiv, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until 24/01/2024.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Ventilated adult patients (≧18 years) with C-ARDS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We screened 16 026 records, evaluated 119 full texts, and included 12 studies (<i>n</i> = 1431 patients) in our final data synthesis, none of them being a randomised controlled trial. The heterogeneity of study procedures and populations did not allow conduction of a meta-analysis. The results of those studies that compared lower and higher PEEP strategies in C-ARDS were ambiguous pointing out either positive effects on oxygenation with high levels of PEEP, or negative changes in lung mechanics.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The available evidence does not provide sufficient guidance for recommendations on optimal PEEP settings in C-ARDS. In general, well designed platform studies are needed to answer the questions raised in this review and, in particular, to investigate the use of individualised PEEP titration techniques and the inclusion of patients with different ARDS entities, severities and disease stages.</p><p><strong>Title registration: </strong>Our systematic review protocol was registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO 2021: CRD42021260303).</p>","PeriodicalId":520410,"journal":{"name":"European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care","volume":"3 6","pages":"e0060"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11798381/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Determination of positive end-expiratory pressure in COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Alexandra Sachkova, Marike Andreas, Daniel Heise, Martin Golinski, Caspar Stephani, Steffen Dickel, Clemens Grimm, Ina Monsef, Vanessa Piechotta, Nicole Skoetz, Sven Laudi, Onnen Moerer\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/EA9.0000000000000060\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The impact of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) ventilation and the optimization of PEEP titration in COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) continues to be a subject of debate. In this systematic review, we investigated the effects of varying PEEP settings on patients with severe ARDS primarily resulting from COVID-19 (C-ARDS).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Does higher or lower PEEP improve the outcomes in COVID-19 ARDS? Does individually titrated PEEP lead to better outcomes compared with PEEP set by standardised (low and high ARDS network PEEP tables) approaches? Does the individually set PEEP (best PEEP) differ from PEEP set according to the standardised approaches (low and high ARDS network PEEP tables)?</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review of observational studies without metaanalysis.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We performed an extensive systematic literature search in Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (CCSR), PubMed, Embase.com, Web of Science Core Collection, World Health Organization COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), medRxiv, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until 24/01/2024.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Ventilated adult patients (≧18 years) with C-ARDS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We screened 16 026 records, evaluated 119 full texts, and included 12 studies (<i>n</i> = 1431 patients) in our final data synthesis, none of them being a randomised controlled trial. The heterogeneity of study procedures and populations did not allow conduction of a meta-analysis. The results of those studies that compared lower and higher PEEP strategies in C-ARDS were ambiguous pointing out either positive effects on oxygenation with high levels of PEEP, or negative changes in lung mechanics.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The available evidence does not provide sufficient guidance for recommendations on optimal PEEP settings in C-ARDS. In general, well designed platform studies are needed to answer the questions raised in this review and, in particular, to investigate the use of individualised PEEP titration techniques and the inclusion of patients with different ARDS entities, severities and disease stages.</p><p><strong>Title registration: </strong>Our systematic review protocol was registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO 2021: CRD42021260303).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520410,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care\",\"volume\":\"3 6\",\"pages\":\"e0060\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11798381/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/EA9.0000000000000060\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EA9.0000000000000060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:高呼气末正压通气(PEEP)对covid -19急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)的影响和PEEP滴定优化一直是争论的主题。在本系统综述中,我们研究了不同PEEP设置对主要由COVID-19引起的严重ARDS (C-ARDS)患者的影响。目的:提高或降低PEEP是否能改善COVID-19 ARDS的预后?与标准化(低ARDS和高ARDS网络PEEP表)方法设定的PEEP相比,单独滴定的PEEP是否能带来更好的结果?单独设定的正压(最佳正压)与根据标准化方法(低和高ARDS网络正压表)设定的正压不同吗?设计:对未进行meta分析的观察性研究进行系统评价。数据来源:我们在Cochrane COVID-19研究注册表(CCSR)、PubMed、Embase.com、Web of Science核心收集、世界卫生组织COVID-19全球冠状病毒病文献、世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)、medRxiv、Cochrane中央对照试验注册表中进行了广泛的系统文献检索,检索时间截止到2024年1月24日。入选标准:伴有C-ARDS的成年通风患者(≥18岁)。结果:我们筛选了16026条记录,评估了119篇全文,并在我们的最终数据合成中纳入了12项研究(n = 1431例患者),其中没有一项是随机对照试验。研究程序和人群的异质性不允许进行荟萃分析。那些比较C-ARDS低PEEP和高PEEP策略的研究结果是模糊的,指出高PEEP对氧合的积极作用或肺力学的负面变化。结论:现有证据不能为C-ARDS的最佳PEEP设置提供足够的指导。一般来说,需要设计良好的平台研究来回答本综述中提出的问题,特别是调查个体化PEEP滴定技术的使用,并纳入不同ARDS实体、严重程度和疾病分期的患者。标题注册:我们的系统评价方案已在国际前瞻性系统评价注册(PROSPERO 2021: CRD42021260303)注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Determination of positive end-expiratory pressure in COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: A systematic review.

Background: The impact of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) ventilation and the optimization of PEEP titration in COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) continues to be a subject of debate. In this systematic review, we investigated the effects of varying PEEP settings on patients with severe ARDS primarily resulting from COVID-19 (C-ARDS).

Objectives: Does higher or lower PEEP improve the outcomes in COVID-19 ARDS? Does individually titrated PEEP lead to better outcomes compared with PEEP set by standardised (low and high ARDS network PEEP tables) approaches? Does the individually set PEEP (best PEEP) differ from PEEP set according to the standardised approaches (low and high ARDS network PEEP tables)?

Design: Systematic review of observational studies without metaanalysis.

Data sources: We performed an extensive systematic literature search in Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (CCSR), PubMed, Embase.com, Web of Science Core Collection, World Health Organization COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), medRxiv, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until 24/01/2024.

Eligibility criteria: Ventilated adult patients (≧18 years) with C-ARDS.

Results: We screened 16 026 records, evaluated 119 full texts, and included 12 studies (n = 1431 patients) in our final data synthesis, none of them being a randomised controlled trial. The heterogeneity of study procedures and populations did not allow conduction of a meta-analysis. The results of those studies that compared lower and higher PEEP strategies in C-ARDS were ambiguous pointing out either positive effects on oxygenation with high levels of PEEP, or negative changes in lung mechanics.

Conclusion: The available evidence does not provide sufficient guidance for recommendations on optimal PEEP settings in C-ARDS. In general, well designed platform studies are needed to answer the questions raised in this review and, in particular, to investigate the use of individualised PEEP titration techniques and the inclusion of patients with different ARDS entities, severities and disease stages.

Title registration: Our systematic review protocol was registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO 2021: CRD42021260303).

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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