Home > Riviste > Minerva Anestesiologica > Fascicoli precedenti > Minerva Anestesiologica 2021 July;87(7) > Minerva Anestesiologica 2021 July;87(7):803-16



Opzioni di pubblicazione
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca


Publication history
Per citare questo articolo


REVIEW   Free accessfree

Minerva Anestesiologica 2021 July;87(7):803-16

DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.21.15254-X


lingua: Inglese

Non-specialist therapeutic strategies in acute respiratory distress syndrome

Alessia LONGOBARDO 1, Timothy A. SNOW 1, 2 , Karen TAM 1, Mervyn SINGER 1, Geoff BELLINGAN 1, Nishkantha ARULKUMARAN 1

1 Bloomsbury Institute of Intensive Care Medicine, University College London, London, UK; 2 Royal Free Perioperative Research Group, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK

INTRODUCTION: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We undertook a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the mortality benefit of non-specialist therapeutic interventions for ARDS available to general critical care units.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register for RCTs investigating therapeutic interventions in ARDS including corticosteroids, fluid management strategy, high PEEP, low tidal volume ventilation, neuromuscular blockade, prone position ventilation, or recruitment maneuvers. Data was collected on demographic information, treatment strategy, duration and dose of treatment, and primary (28 or 30-day mortality) and secondary (PaO2:FiO2 ratio at 24-48 hours) outcomes.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: No improvement in 28-day mortality could be demonstrated in three RCTs investigating high PEEP (28.0% vs. 30.2% control; risk ratio [confidence interval] 0.93 [0.82-1.06]; eight assessing prone position ventilation (39.3% vs. 44.5%; RR 0.83 [0.68-1.01]; seven investigating neuromuscular blockade (37.8% vs. 42.0%; RR 0.91 [0.81-1.03]); ten investigating recruitment maneuvers (42.4% vs. 42.1%; RR 1.01 [0.91-1.12]); eight investigating steroids (34.8% vs. 41.1%; RR 0.81 [0.59-1.12]); and one investigating conservative fluid strategies (25.4% vs. 28.4%; RR 0.90 [0.73-1.10]). Three studies assessing low tidal volume ventilation (33.1% vs. 41.9%; RR 0.79 (0.68-0.91); P=0.001), and subgroup analyses within studies investigating prone position ventilation greater than 12 hours (33.1% vs. 44.4%; RR 0.75 [0.59-0.95), P=0.02) did reveal outcome benefit.
CONCLUSIONS: Among non-specialist therapeutic strategies available to general critical care units, low tidal volumes and prone position ventilation for greater than 12 hours improve mortality in ARDS.

KEY WORDS: Meta-analysis; Neuromuscular blockade; Pulmonary ventilation; Respiratory distress syndrome; Steroids; Systematic review

inizio pagina