Cargando…

Higher versus lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the association of higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), as opposed to lower PEEP, with hospital mortality in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergoing invasive mechani...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pettenuzzo, Tommaso, Boscolo, Annalisa, De Cassai, Alessandro, Sella, Nicolò, Zarantonello, Francesco, Persona, Paolo, Pasin, Laura, Landoni, Giovanni, Navalesi, Paolo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8280384/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34266460
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-021-03669-4
_version_ 1783722636788891648
author Pettenuzzo, Tommaso
Boscolo, Annalisa
De Cassai, Alessandro
Sella, Nicolò
Zarantonello, Francesco
Persona, Paolo
Pasin, Laura
Landoni, Giovanni
Navalesi, Paolo
author_facet Pettenuzzo, Tommaso
Boscolo, Annalisa
De Cassai, Alessandro
Sella, Nicolò
Zarantonello, Francesco
Persona, Paolo
Pasin, Laura
Landoni, Giovanni
Navalesi, Paolo
author_sort Pettenuzzo, Tommaso
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the association of higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), as opposed to lower PEEP, with hospital mortality in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation for reasons other than acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: We performed an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception until June 16, 2021 with no language restrictions. In addition, a research-in-progress database and grey literature were searched. RESULTS: We identified 22 RCTs (2225 patients) comparing higher PEEP (1007 patients) with lower PEEP (991 patients). No statistically significant association between higher PEEP and hospital mortality was observed (risk ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.89–1.16; I(2) = 0%, p = 0.62; low certainty of evidence). Among secondary outcomes, higher PEEP was associated with better oxygenation, higher respiratory system compliance, and lower risk of hypoxemia and ARDS occurrence. Furthermore, barotrauma, hypotension, duration of ventilation, lengths of stay, and ICU mortality were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In our meta-analysis of RCTs, higher PEEP, compared with lower PEEP, was not associated with mortality in patients without ARDS receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. Further large high-quality RCTs are required to confirm these findings. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03669-4.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8280384
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82803842021-07-16 Higher versus lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Pettenuzzo, Tommaso Boscolo, Annalisa De Cassai, Alessandro Sella, Nicolò Zarantonello, Francesco Persona, Paolo Pasin, Laura Landoni, Giovanni Navalesi, Paolo Crit Care Research BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the association of higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), as opposed to lower PEEP, with hospital mortality in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation for reasons other than acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: We performed an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception until June 16, 2021 with no language restrictions. In addition, a research-in-progress database and grey literature were searched. RESULTS: We identified 22 RCTs (2225 patients) comparing higher PEEP (1007 patients) with lower PEEP (991 patients). No statistically significant association between higher PEEP and hospital mortality was observed (risk ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.89–1.16; I(2) = 0%, p = 0.62; low certainty of evidence). Among secondary outcomes, higher PEEP was associated with better oxygenation, higher respiratory system compliance, and lower risk of hypoxemia and ARDS occurrence. Furthermore, barotrauma, hypotension, duration of ventilation, lengths of stay, and ICU mortality were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In our meta-analysis of RCTs, higher PEEP, compared with lower PEEP, was not associated with mortality in patients without ARDS receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. Further large high-quality RCTs are required to confirm these findings. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03669-4. BioMed Central 2021-07-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8280384/ /pubmed/34266460 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-021-03669-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Pettenuzzo, Tommaso
Boscolo, Annalisa
De Cassai, Alessandro
Sella, Nicolò
Zarantonello, Francesco
Persona, Paolo
Pasin, Laura
Landoni, Giovanni
Navalesi, Paolo
Higher versus lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title Higher versus lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full Higher versus lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_fullStr Higher versus lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed Higher versus lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_short Higher versus lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_sort higher versus lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8280384/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34266460
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-021-03669-4
work_keys_str_mv AT pettenuzzotommaso higherversuslowerpositiveendexpiratorypressureinpatientswithoutacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT boscoloannalisa higherversuslowerpositiveendexpiratorypressureinpatientswithoutacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT decassaialessandro higherversuslowerpositiveendexpiratorypressureinpatientswithoutacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT sellanicolo higherversuslowerpositiveendexpiratorypressureinpatientswithoutacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT zarantonellofrancesco higherversuslowerpositiveendexpiratorypressureinpatientswithoutacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT personapaolo higherversuslowerpositiveendexpiratorypressureinpatientswithoutacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT pasinlaura higherversuslowerpositiveendexpiratorypressureinpatientswithoutacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT landonigiovanni higherversuslowerpositiveendexpiratorypressureinpatientswithoutacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT navalesipaolo higherversuslowerpositiveendexpiratorypressureinpatientswithoutacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials