Cargando…

Higher PEEP for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a Bayesian meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

Objective: Benefit or harm of higher positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is controversial. We aimed to assess the impact of higher levels of PEEP in patients with ARDS under a Bayesian framework. Design: Systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Neto, Ary Serpa, Tomlinson, George, Sahetya, Sarina K., Ball, Lorenzo, Nichol, Alistair D., Hodgson, Carol, Cavalcanti, Alexandre Biasi, Briel, Matthias, de Abreu, Marcelo Gama, Pelosi, Paolo, Schultz, Marcus J., Goligher, Ewan C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10692546/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38045516
http://dx.doi.org/10.51893/2021.2.oa4
_version_ 1785152965891325952
author Neto, Ary Serpa
Tomlinson, George
Sahetya, Sarina K.
Ball, Lorenzo
Nichol, Alistair D.
Hodgson, Carol
Cavalcanti, Alexandre Biasi
Briel, Matthias
de Abreu, Marcelo Gama
Pelosi, Paolo
Schultz, Marcus J.
Goligher, Ewan C.
author_facet Neto, Ary Serpa
Tomlinson, George
Sahetya, Sarina K.
Ball, Lorenzo
Nichol, Alistair D.
Hodgson, Carol
Cavalcanti, Alexandre Biasi
Briel, Matthias
de Abreu, Marcelo Gama
Pelosi, Paolo
Schultz, Marcus J.
Goligher, Ewan C.
author_sort Neto, Ary Serpa
collection PubMed
description Objective: Benefit or harm of higher positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is controversial. We aimed to assess the impact of higher levels of PEEP in patients with ARDS under a Bayesian framework. Design: Systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials comparing higher to lower PEEP in adult patients with ARDS. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1996 to 1 March 2020. Review methods: We extracted data from high quality randomised clinical trials comparing higher to lower levels of PEEP in adult patients, using low tidal volume in both arms, and conducted a Bayesian meta-analysis using aggregate data from these studies. Results: Eight clinical trials including 3703 patients (n = 1833 for higher PEEP, n = 1870 for lower PEEP) were included. Under a minimally informative prior, the posterior probability of benefit with higher PEEP was 65% (relative risk, 0.97 [95% credible interval, 0.78-1.14]). In patients with moderate-to- severe ARDS, the posterior probability of benefit with higher PEEP was 77% (relative risk, 0.94 [95% credible interval, 0.77–1.13]). Down-weighting studies that employed a maximum recruitment strategy by 100% increased the posterior probability of benefit to 92% under a minimally informative prior. Conclusions: The probability of benefit or harm from routine use of higher PEEP for patients with ARDS ranges from 27% to 86%, and from 14% to 73% depending on one's prior, suggesting continued uncertainty and equipoise regarding the benefit of PEEP If data from trials using a maximum recruitment strategy is discounted to some extent because of uncertainty over the appropriateness of this approach, the available evidence suggests that higher PEEP could be beneficial for moderate-to-severe ARDS. However, well powered randomised clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10692546
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106925462023-12-03 Higher PEEP for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a Bayesian meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials Neto, Ary Serpa Tomlinson, George Sahetya, Sarina K. Ball, Lorenzo Nichol, Alistair D. Hodgson, Carol Cavalcanti, Alexandre Biasi Briel, Matthias de Abreu, Marcelo Gama Pelosi, Paolo Schultz, Marcus J. Goligher, Ewan C. Crit Care Resusc Original Articles Objective: Benefit or harm of higher positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is controversial. We aimed to assess the impact of higher levels of PEEP in patients with ARDS under a Bayesian framework. Design: Systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials comparing higher to lower PEEP in adult patients with ARDS. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1996 to 1 March 2020. Review methods: We extracted data from high quality randomised clinical trials comparing higher to lower levels of PEEP in adult patients, using low tidal volume in both arms, and conducted a Bayesian meta-analysis using aggregate data from these studies. Results: Eight clinical trials including 3703 patients (n = 1833 for higher PEEP, n = 1870 for lower PEEP) were included. Under a minimally informative prior, the posterior probability of benefit with higher PEEP was 65% (relative risk, 0.97 [95% credible interval, 0.78-1.14]). In patients with moderate-to- severe ARDS, the posterior probability of benefit with higher PEEP was 77% (relative risk, 0.94 [95% credible interval, 0.77–1.13]). Down-weighting studies that employed a maximum recruitment strategy by 100% increased the posterior probability of benefit to 92% under a minimally informative prior. Conclusions: The probability of benefit or harm from routine use of higher PEEP for patients with ARDS ranges from 27% to 86%, and from 14% to 73% depending on one's prior, suggesting continued uncertainty and equipoise regarding the benefit of PEEP If data from trials using a maximum recruitment strategy is discounted to some extent because of uncertainty over the appropriateness of this approach, the available evidence suggests that higher PEEP could be beneficial for moderate-to-severe ARDS. However, well powered randomised clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings. Elsevier 2023-10-18 /pmc/articles/PMC10692546/ /pubmed/38045516 http://dx.doi.org/10.51893/2021.2.oa4 Text en © 2021 College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Articles
Neto, Ary Serpa
Tomlinson, George
Sahetya, Sarina K.
Ball, Lorenzo
Nichol, Alistair D.
Hodgson, Carol
Cavalcanti, Alexandre Biasi
Briel, Matthias
de Abreu, Marcelo Gama
Pelosi, Paolo
Schultz, Marcus J.
Goligher, Ewan C.
Higher PEEP for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a Bayesian meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials
title Higher PEEP for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a Bayesian meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials
title_full Higher PEEP for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a Bayesian meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials
title_fullStr Higher PEEP for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a Bayesian meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials
title_full_unstemmed Higher PEEP for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a Bayesian meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials
title_short Higher PEEP for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a Bayesian meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials
title_sort higher peep for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a bayesian meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10692546/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38045516
http://dx.doi.org/10.51893/2021.2.oa4
work_keys_str_mv AT netoaryserpa higherpeepforacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeabayesianmetaanalysisofrandomisedclinicaltrials
AT tomlinsongeorge higherpeepforacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeabayesianmetaanalysisofrandomisedclinicaltrials
AT sahetyasarinak higherpeepforacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeabayesianmetaanalysisofrandomisedclinicaltrials
AT balllorenzo higherpeepforacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeabayesianmetaanalysisofrandomisedclinicaltrials
AT nicholalistaird higherpeepforacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeabayesianmetaanalysisofrandomisedclinicaltrials
AT hodgsoncarol higherpeepforacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeabayesianmetaanalysisofrandomisedclinicaltrials
AT cavalcantialexandrebiasi higherpeepforacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeabayesianmetaanalysisofrandomisedclinicaltrials
AT brielmatthias higherpeepforacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeabayesianmetaanalysisofrandomisedclinicaltrials
AT deabreumarcelogama higherpeepforacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeabayesianmetaanalysisofrandomisedclinicaltrials
AT pelosipaolo higherpeepforacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeabayesianmetaanalysisofrandomisedclinicaltrials
AT schultzmarcusj higherpeepforacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeabayesianmetaanalysisofrandomisedclinicaltrials
AT goligherewanc higherpeepforacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeabayesianmetaanalysisofrandomisedclinicaltrials