慢性危重病人的吸气肌训练:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 0.9 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Einstein-Sao Paulo Pub Date : 2025-07-18 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.31744/einstein_journal/2025RW1134
Gustavo Rodrigues das Chagas, Aléxia Gabriela da Silva Vieira, Jamile Caroline Garbuglio de Araújo, Raquel Afonso Caserta Eid, Caroline Gomes Mól, Ricardo Kenji Nawa
{"title":"慢性危重病人的吸气肌训练:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Gustavo Rodrigues das Chagas, Aléxia Gabriela da Silva Vieira, Jamile Caroline Garbuglio de Araújo, Raquel Afonso Caserta Eid, Caroline Gomes Mól, Ricardo Kenji Nawa","doi":"10.31744/einstein_journal/2025RW1134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically review and analyze studies investigating the efficacy and safety of inspiratory muscle training in adult chronic critically ill patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, LILACS, Clinical Trials Registry, and World Health Organization databases were queried on November 24, 2022 and January 22, 2025. The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. RevMan V5.4 was used to analyze mean differences or standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) for continuous variables and risk ratios with 95%CIs for dichotomous outcomes. The primary outcomes were inspiratory muscle strength, duration of mechanical ventilation, and severe adverse events; the secondary outcomes were hospital and intensive care unit mortality, intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay, pulmonary function, non-serious adverse events, respiratory muscle mass, and functional status.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven studies (n=390 participants) were included in the analysis. There was a significant increase in inspiratory muscle strength with inspiratory muscle training versus usual care (mean difference, -8.37; 95%CI= -15.21 to -1.52), although the certainty of evidence was very low; when compared with sham interventions, there was no significant difference (mean difference, -4.26; 95%CI= -14.05 to 5.53), also with very low certainty of evidence. The results for pulmonary function, duration of mechanical ventilation, and mortality were imprecise, with very low certainty of evidence. The available evidence also indicates the potential safety benefit of inspiratory muscle training, although the certainty of evidence remains very low. Conclusion: We identified that inspiratory muscle training may improve inspiratory muscle strength, with little to no difference on duration of mechanical ventilation, pulmonary function and severe and non-serious adverse events, when compared to sham inspiratory muscle training and usual care. However, the certainty of the evidence is very low. Evidence regarding the impact of inspiratory muscle training on intensive care unit mortality and length of stay is uncertain. Prospero database registration ID CRD42022370750.</p>","PeriodicalId":47359,"journal":{"name":"Einstein-Sao Paulo","volume":"23 ","pages":"eRW1134"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12266845/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inspiratory muscle training for chronic critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"Gustavo Rodrigues das Chagas, Aléxia Gabriela da Silva Vieira, Jamile Caroline Garbuglio de Araújo, Raquel Afonso Caserta Eid, Caroline Gomes Mól, Ricardo Kenji Nawa\",\"doi\":\"10.31744/einstein_journal/2025RW1134\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically review and analyze studies investigating the efficacy and safety of inspiratory muscle training in adult chronic critically ill patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, LILACS, Clinical Trials Registry, and World Health Organization databases were queried on November 24, 2022 and January 22, 2025. The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. RevMan V5.4 was used to analyze mean differences or standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) for continuous variables and risk ratios with 95%CIs for dichotomous outcomes. The primary outcomes were inspiratory muscle strength, duration of mechanical ventilation, and severe adverse events; the secondary outcomes were hospital and intensive care unit mortality, intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay, pulmonary function, non-serious adverse events, respiratory muscle mass, and functional status.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven studies (n=390 participants) were included in the analysis. There was a significant increase in inspiratory muscle strength with inspiratory muscle training versus usual care (mean difference, -8.37; 95%CI= -15.21 to -1.52), although the certainty of evidence was very low; when compared with sham interventions, there was no significant difference (mean difference, -4.26; 95%CI= -14.05 to 5.53), also with very low certainty of evidence. The results for pulmonary function, duration of mechanical ventilation, and mortality were imprecise, with very low certainty of evidence. The available evidence also indicates the potential safety benefit of inspiratory muscle training, although the certainty of evidence remains very low. Conclusion: We identified that inspiratory muscle training may improve inspiratory muscle strength, with little to no difference on duration of mechanical ventilation, pulmonary function and severe and non-serious adverse events, when compared to sham inspiratory muscle training and usual care. However, the certainty of the evidence is very low. Evidence regarding the impact of inspiratory muscle training on intensive care unit mortality and length of stay is uncertain. Prospero database registration ID CRD42022370750.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47359,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Einstein-Sao Paulo\",\"volume\":\"23 \",\"pages\":\"eRW1134\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12266845/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Einstein-Sao Paulo\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31744/einstein_journal/2025RW1134\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Einstein-Sao Paulo","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31744/einstein_journal/2025RW1134","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:对成人慢性危重症患者进行吸气肌训练的有效性和安全性进行系统回顾和分析。方法:于2022年11月24日和2025年1月22日分别查询MEDLINE、Embase、CENTRAL、LILACS、临床试验注册中心和世界卫生组织数据库。审查是按照PRISMA的指导方针进行的。采用RevMan V5.4分析连续变量的均值差异或标准化均值差异和95%置信区间(95% ci),二分类结果的风险比为95% ci。主要结局为吸气肌力量、机械通气持续时间和严重不良事件;次要结局是住院和重症监护病房死亡率、重症监护病房和住院时间、肺功能、非严重不良事件、呼吸肌质量和功能状态。结果:7项研究(n=390名受试者)被纳入分析。与常规护理相比,吸气肌训练显著增加了吸气肌力量(平均差值为-8.37;95%CI= -15.21 ~ -1.52),尽管证据的确定性非常低;与假干预相比,无显著差异(平均差异-4.26;95%CI= -14.05 ~ 5.53),证据的确定性也很低。肺功能、机械通气持续时间和死亡率的结果不精确,证据的确定性非常低。现有的证据也表明了吸气肌训练的潜在安全益处,尽管证据的确定性仍然很低。结论:我们发现,与假吸气肌训练和常规护理相比,吸气肌训练可以改善吸气肌力量,在机械通气持续时间、肺功能和严重和非严重不良事件方面几乎没有差异。然而,证据的确定性非常低。关于吸气肌训练对重症监护病房死亡率和住院时间影响的证据尚不确定。普洛斯彼罗数据库注册ID CRD42022370750。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Inspiratory muscle training for chronic critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Objective: To systematically review and analyze studies investigating the efficacy and safety of inspiratory muscle training in adult chronic critically ill patients.

Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, LILACS, Clinical Trials Registry, and World Health Organization databases were queried on November 24, 2022 and January 22, 2025. The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. RevMan V5.4 was used to analyze mean differences or standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) for continuous variables and risk ratios with 95%CIs for dichotomous outcomes. The primary outcomes were inspiratory muscle strength, duration of mechanical ventilation, and severe adverse events; the secondary outcomes were hospital and intensive care unit mortality, intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay, pulmonary function, non-serious adverse events, respiratory muscle mass, and functional status.

Results: Seven studies (n=390 participants) were included in the analysis. There was a significant increase in inspiratory muscle strength with inspiratory muscle training versus usual care (mean difference, -8.37; 95%CI= -15.21 to -1.52), although the certainty of evidence was very low; when compared with sham interventions, there was no significant difference (mean difference, -4.26; 95%CI= -14.05 to 5.53), also with very low certainty of evidence. The results for pulmonary function, duration of mechanical ventilation, and mortality were imprecise, with very low certainty of evidence. The available evidence also indicates the potential safety benefit of inspiratory muscle training, although the certainty of evidence remains very low. Conclusion: We identified that inspiratory muscle training may improve inspiratory muscle strength, with little to no difference on duration of mechanical ventilation, pulmonary function and severe and non-serious adverse events, when compared to sham inspiratory muscle training and usual care. However, the certainty of the evidence is very low. Evidence regarding the impact of inspiratory muscle training on intensive care unit mortality and length of stay is uncertain. Prospero database registration ID CRD42022370750.

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
Einstein-Sao Paulo
Einstein-Sao Paulo MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
210
审稿时长
38 weeks
×
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