创伤性ARDS的最佳呼吸机策略。

Q2 Medicine
Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps Pub Date : 2019-06-01 Epub Date: 2018-03-29 DOI:10.1136/jramc-2017-000889
Giles Goatly, N Guidozzi, M Khan
{"title":"创伤性ARDS的最佳呼吸机策略。","authors":"Giles Goatly,&nbsp;N Guidozzi,&nbsp;M Khan","doi":"10.1136/jramc-2017-000889","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was first described in the 1960s and has become a major area of research due to the mortality and morbidity associated with it. ARDS is currently defined using the Berlin Consensus; however, this is not wholly applicable for trauma-related ARDS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review of the literature was undertaken using the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses methodology. The Ovid Medline, Web of Science and PubMed online databases were interrogated for papers published between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2017.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The literature search yielded a total of 64 papers that fulfilled the search criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite decades of dedicated research into different treatment modalities, ARDS continues to carry a high burden of mortality. The ARDS definitions laid out in the Berlin consensus are not entirely suited to trauma. While trauma-related ARDS represents a small portion of the available research, the evidence continues to favour low tidal volume ventilation as the benchmark for current practice. Positive end expiratory ventilation and airway pressure release ventilation in trauma cohorts may be beneficial; however, the evidence to date does not show this.</p>","PeriodicalId":17327,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps","volume":"165 3","pages":"193-197"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/jramc-2017-000889","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimal ventilator strategies for trauma-related ARDS.\",\"authors\":\"Giles Goatly,&nbsp;N Guidozzi,&nbsp;M Khan\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/jramc-2017-000889\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was first described in the 1960s and has become a major area of research due to the mortality and morbidity associated with it. ARDS is currently defined using the Berlin Consensus; however, this is not wholly applicable for trauma-related ARDS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review of the literature was undertaken using the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses methodology. The Ovid Medline, Web of Science and PubMed online databases were interrogated for papers published between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2017.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The literature search yielded a total of 64 papers that fulfilled the search criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite decades of dedicated research into different treatment modalities, ARDS continues to carry a high burden of mortality. The ARDS definitions laid out in the Berlin consensus are not entirely suited to trauma. While trauma-related ARDS represents a small portion of the available research, the evidence continues to favour low tidal volume ventilation as the benchmark for current practice. Positive end expiratory ventilation and airway pressure release ventilation in trauma cohorts may be beneficial; however, the evidence to date does not show this.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17327,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps\",\"volume\":\"165 3\",\"pages\":\"193-197\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/jramc-2017-000889\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/jramc-2017-000889\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2018/3/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jramc-2017-000889","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/3/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:急性呼吸窘迫综合征(Acute respiratory distress syndrome, ARDS)在20世纪60年代首次被描述,由于其死亡率和发病率的相关性,ARDS已成为一个主要的研究领域。ARDS目前使用柏林共识定义;然而,这并不完全适用于创伤相关的ARDS。方法:采用首选系统评价报告和Meta分析方法对文献进行系统评价。对1995年1月1日至2017年12月31日期间发表的论文进行了Ovid Medline、Web of Science和PubMed在线数据库的查询。结果:检索到符合检索标准的文献64篇。结论:尽管对不同治疗方式进行了数十年的专门研究,但ARDS的死亡率仍然很高。柏林共识中提出的ARDS定义并不完全适用于创伤。虽然与创伤相关的ARDS只占现有研究的一小部分,但有证据表明,低潮气量通气仍是当前实践的基准。创伤患者正呼气末通气和气道压力释放通气可能是有益的;然而,迄今为止的证据并没有证明这一点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Optimal ventilator strategies for trauma-related ARDS.

Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was first described in the 1960s and has become a major area of research due to the mortality and morbidity associated with it. ARDS is currently defined using the Berlin Consensus; however, this is not wholly applicable for trauma-related ARDS.

Methods: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken using the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses methodology. The Ovid Medline, Web of Science and PubMed online databases were interrogated for papers published between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2017.

Results: The literature search yielded a total of 64 papers that fulfilled the search criteria.

Conclusions: Despite decades of dedicated research into different treatment modalities, ARDS continues to carry a high burden of mortality. The ARDS definitions laid out in the Berlin consensus are not entirely suited to trauma. While trauma-related ARDS represents a small portion of the available research, the evidence continues to favour low tidal volume ventilation as the benchmark for current practice. Positive end expiratory ventilation and airway pressure release ventilation in trauma cohorts may be beneficial; however, the evidence to date does not show this.

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
Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps
Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps aims to publish high quality research, reviews and case reports, as well as other invited articles, which pertain to the practice of military medicine in its broadest sense. It welcomes material from all ranks, services and corps wherever they serve as well as submissions from beyond the military. It is intended not only to propagate current knowledge and expertise but also to act as an institutional memory for the practice of medicine within the military.
×
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