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}
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).