危重病人早期气管切开术与晚期气管切开术的比较:随机临床试验系统综述与荟萃分析和试验序列分析的总综述。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Aline Boni, Tiago Antonio Tonietto, Marcos Frata Rihl, Marina Verçoza Viana
{"title":"危重病人早期气管切开术与晚期气管切开术的比较:随机临床试验系统综述与荟萃分析和试验序列分析的总综述。","authors":"Aline Boni, Tiago Antonio Tonietto, Marcos Frata Rihl, Marina Verçoza Viana","doi":"10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002434","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study conducts an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the outcomes of early vs late tracheostomy, focusing on potential biases and the coherence of the evidence.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Searches were conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase, Lilacs and Cochrane Library databases up to November 2024.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Our analysis included studies meeting the following criteria: Population: patients admitted to intensive care units and receiving mechanical ventilation.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>early tracheostomy, as defined by the respective study.</p><p><strong>Control: </strong>late tracheostomy, as defined by the respective study.</p><p><strong>Primary outcomes: </strong>mortality and incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>systematic reviews and meta-analysis of RCTs.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Two reviewers performed article inclusion, with consensus resolution by a third reviewer in case of disagreement. The quality of studies was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted with an algorithm based on the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) classification DATA SYNTHESIS: Out of 7664 articles identified, 60 articles were considered eligible for full-text reading, and 22 were included in the review. Most studies were rated as critically low quality. Our meta-analysis update with 19 RCTs showed a decrease in VAP (OR 0.65 (0.47 to 0.89), 95% CI; p=0.007) among early tracheostomy patients compared with late tracheostomy patients, but no significant difference in terms of mortality (OR 0.85 (0.70 to 1.03), 95% CI; p=0.09). A trial sequential analysis indicated that the current data are insufficient to reach a definitive conclusion.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In summary, despite extensive research on tracheostomy timing and its outcomes, as well as a correlation in our study between early tracheostomy and reduced VAP incidence, evidence remains weak. Besides that, no clear mortality benefits were observed. Further research using a different approach is crucial to identify the specific population that may derive benefits from early tracheostomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":9048,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11973787/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Early versus late tracheostomy in critically ill patients: an umbrella review of systematic reviews of randomised clinical trials with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Aline Boni, Tiago Antonio Tonietto, Marcos Frata Rihl, Marina Verçoza Viana\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002434\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study conducts an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the outcomes of early vs late tracheostomy, focusing on potential biases and the coherence of the evidence.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Searches were conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase, Lilacs and Cochrane Library databases up to November 2024.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Our analysis included studies meeting the following criteria: Population: patients admitted to intensive care units and receiving mechanical ventilation.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>early tracheostomy, as defined by the respective study.</p><p><strong>Control: </strong>late tracheostomy, as defined by the respective study.</p><p><strong>Primary outcomes: </strong>mortality and incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>systematic reviews and meta-analysis of RCTs.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Two reviewers performed article inclusion, with consensus resolution by a third reviewer in case of disagreement. The quality of studies was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted with an algorithm based on the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) classification DATA SYNTHESIS: Out of 7664 articles identified, 60 articles were considered eligible for full-text reading, and 22 were included in the review. Most studies were rated as critically low quality. Our meta-analysis update with 19 RCTs showed a decrease in VAP (OR 0.65 (0.47 to 0.89), 95% CI; p=0.007) among early tracheostomy patients compared with late tracheostomy patients, but no significant difference in terms of mortality (OR 0.85 (0.70 to 1.03), 95% CI; p=0.09). A trial sequential analysis indicated that the current data are insufficient to reach a definitive conclusion.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In summary, despite extensive research on tracheostomy timing and its outcomes, as well as a correlation in our study between early tracheostomy and reduced VAP incidence, evidence remains weak. Besides that, no clear mortality benefits were observed. Further research using a different approach is crucial to identify the specific population that may derive benefits from early tracheostomy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9048,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Open Respiratory Research\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11973787/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Open Respiratory Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002434\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002434","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的本研究对随机临床试验(RCT)的系统综述和荟萃分析进行了总体回顾,以评估早期气管切开术与晚期气管切开术的结果,重点关注潜在的偏倚和证据的一致性:数据来源:在 MEDLINE、Embase、Lilacs 和 Cochrane Library 数据库中进行检索,检索时间截至 2024 年 11 月:我们的分析包括符合以下标准的研究:干预:早期气管切开术,由相关研究定义。对照:晚期气管切开术,由相关研究定义。主要结果:死亡率和呼吸机相关肺炎(VAP)的发生率。研究设计:系统综述和RCT荟萃分析:数据提取:由两名审稿人进行文章收录,如有分歧,由第三名审稿人达成共识。研究质量采用 AMSTAR 2 工具进行评估。采用基于推荐、评估、发展和评价等级分类(GRADE)的算法进行随机效应荟萃分析 数据分析:在确定的 7664 篇文章中,有 60 篇符合全文阅读条件,其中 22 篇被纳入综述。大多数研究的质量被评为极低。我们更新了 19 项 RCT 的荟萃分析,结果显示早期气管切开术患者与晚期气管切开术患者相比,VAP 有所下降(OR 为 0.65(0.47 至 0.89),95% CI;P=0.007),但死亡率无显著差异(OR 为 0.85(0.70 至 1.03),95% CI;P=0.09)。试验顺序分析表明,目前的数据不足以得出明确结论:总之,尽管对气管切开时机及其结果进行了广泛研究,我们的研究也发现早期气管切开与 VAP 发生率降低之间存在相关性,但证据仍然薄弱。此外,也没有观察到对死亡率有明显的益处。采用不同的方法开展进一步的研究对于确定可能从早期气管切开术中获益的特定人群至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Early versus late tracheostomy in critically ill patients: an umbrella review of systematic reviews of randomised clinical trials with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis.

Objective: This study conducts an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the outcomes of early vs late tracheostomy, focusing on potential biases and the coherence of the evidence.

Data sources: Searches were conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase, Lilacs and Cochrane Library databases up to November 2024.

Study selection: Our analysis included studies meeting the following criteria: Population: patients admitted to intensive care units and receiving mechanical ventilation.

Intervention: early tracheostomy, as defined by the respective study.

Control: late tracheostomy, as defined by the respective study.

Primary outcomes: mortality and incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).

Study design: systematic reviews and meta-analysis of RCTs.

Data extraction: Two reviewers performed article inclusion, with consensus resolution by a third reviewer in case of disagreement. The quality of studies was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted with an algorithm based on the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) classification DATA SYNTHESIS: Out of 7664 articles identified, 60 articles were considered eligible for full-text reading, and 22 were included in the review. Most studies were rated as critically low quality. Our meta-analysis update with 19 RCTs showed a decrease in VAP (OR 0.65 (0.47 to 0.89), 95% CI; p=0.007) among early tracheostomy patients compared with late tracheostomy patients, but no significant difference in terms of mortality (OR 0.85 (0.70 to 1.03), 95% CI; p=0.09). A trial sequential analysis indicated that the current data are insufficient to reach a definitive conclusion.

Conclusion: In summary, despite extensive research on tracheostomy timing and its outcomes, as well as a correlation in our study between early tracheostomy and reduced VAP incidence, evidence remains weak. Besides that, no clear mortality benefits were observed. Further research using a different approach is crucial to identify the specific population that may derive benefits from early tracheostomy.

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
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
BMJ Open Respiratory Research RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
95
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open Respiratory Research is a peer-reviewed, open access journal publishing respiratory and critical care medicine. It is the sister journal to Thorax and co-owned by the British Thoracic Society and BMJ. The journal focuses on robustness of methodology and scientific rigour with less emphasis on novelty or perceived impact. BMJ Open Respiratory Research operates a rapid review process, with continuous publication online, ensuring timely, up-to-date research is available worldwide. The journal publishes review articles and all research study types: Basic science including laboratory based experiments and animal models, Pilot studies or proof of concept, Observational studies, Study protocols, Registries, Clinical trials from phase I to multicentre randomised clinical trials, Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
×
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