Dataset Information

Respiratory support strategy in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Network meta-analyses (NMAs) of respiratory management strategies for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) have been reported, but no previous study has compared noninvasive ventilation (NIV), high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), standard oxygenation therapy (SOT), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for de novo AHRF. Therefore, we conducted an NMA to assess the effectiveness of these four respiratory strategies in patients with de novo AHRF.

Methods

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Ichushi databases were searched. Studies including adults aged ≥18 years with AHRF and RCTs that compared two different oxygenation techniques (SOT, NIV, HFNO, or IMV) were selected. A frequentist-based approach with multivariate random-effects meta-analysis was used. The outcomes were mortality and intubation rates.

Results

Among the 14,263 records initially identified, 25 studies (3302 patients) were included. In the analysis of mortality, compared to SOT, NIV (risk ratio [RR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.95) reduced mortality; however, IMV (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.57-1.78) and HFNO (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66-1.20) did not. For assessments of the intubation incidence, compared to SOT, NIV use (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.79) was associated with a reduction in intubation, but HFNO (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.61-1.11) was not significant.

Conclusions

Our NMA demonstrated that only NIV showed clinical benefits compared with SOT as an initial respiratory strategy for de novo AHRF. Further investigation, especially comparison with HFNO, is warranted.

Trial registration

PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020213948 , 11/11/2020).

SUBMITTER: Okano H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9072760 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Respiratory support strategy in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Okano Hiromu H Sakuraya Masaaki M Masuyama Tomoyuki T Kimata Shunsuke S Hokari Satoshi S

JA clinical reports 20220506 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Network meta-analyses (NMAs) of respiratory management strategies for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) have been reported, but no previous study has compared noninvasive ventilation (NIV), high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), standard oxygenation therapy (SOT), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for de novo AHRF. Therefore, we conducted an NMA to assess the effectiveness of these four respiratory strategies in patients with de novo AHRF.<h4>Methods</h4>The Cochran ...[more]

PMID: 35522380

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNoninvasive respiratory support modalities are common alternatives to mechanical ventilation in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, studies historically compare noninvasive respiratory support to conventional oxygen rather than mechanical ventilation. In this study, we compared outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support to patients treated initially with invasive mechanical ventilation.MethodsThis is a retrospective observational cohort study between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019 at a large healthcare network in the United States. We used a validated phenotyping algorithm to classify adult patients (≥18 years) with eligible International Classification of Diseases codes into two cohorts: those treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support or those treated invasive mechanical ventilation only. The primary outcome was time-to-in-hospital death analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox model adjusted for potential confounders. Secondary outcomes included time-to-hospital discharge alive. A secondary analysis was conducted to examine potential differences between noninvasive positive pressure ventilation and nasal high flow.ResultsDuring the study period, 3177 patients met inclusion criteria (40% invasive mechanical ventilation, 60% noninvasive respiratory support). Initial noninvasive respiratory support was not associated with a decreased hazard of in-hospital death (HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.35-1.2), but was associated with an increased hazard of discharge alive (HR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.92-2.67). In-hospital death varied between the nasal high flow (HR 3.27, 95% CI: 1.43-7.45) and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.25-1.07), but both were associated with increased likelihood of discharge alive (nasal high flow HR 2.12, 95 CI: 1.25-3.57; noninvasive positive pressure ventilation HR 2.29, 95% CI: 1.92-2.74).ConclusionsThese data show that noninvasive respiratory support is not associated with reduced hazards of in-hospital death but is associated with hospital discharge alive.

Project description:ImportanceTreatment with noninvasive oxygenation strategies such as noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal oxygen may be more effective than standard oxygen therapy alone in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.ObjectiveTo compare the association of noninvasive oxygenation strategies with mortality and endotracheal intubation in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.Data sourcesThe following bibliographic databases were searched from inception until April 2020: MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Web of Science, and LILACS. No limits were applied to language, publication year, sex, or race.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials enrolling adult participants with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure comparing high-flow nasal oxygen, face mask noninvasive ventilation, helmet noninvasive ventilation, or standard oxygen therapy.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted individual study data and evaluated studies for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Network meta-analyses using a bayesian framework to derive risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences along with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were conducted. GRADE methodology was used to rate the certainty in findings.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was all-cause mortality up to 90 days. A secondary outcome was endotracheal intubation up to 30 days.ResultsTwenty-five randomized clinical trials (3804 participants) were included. Compared with standard oxygen, treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.40 [95% CrI, 0.24-0.63]; absolute risk difference, -0.19 [95% CrI, -0.37 to -0.09]; low certainty) and face mask noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.83 [95% CrI, 0.68-0.99]; absolute risk difference, -0.06 [95% CrI, -0.15 to -0.01]; moderate certainty) were associated with a lower risk of mortality (21 studies [3370 patients]). Helmet noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.26 [95% CrI, 0.14-0.46]; absolute risk difference, -0.32 [95% CrI, -0.60 to -0.16]; low certainty), face mask noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.76 [95% CrI, 0.62-0.90]; absolute risk difference, -0.12 [95% CrI, -0.25 to -0.05]; moderate certainty) and high-flow nasal oxygen (RR, 0.76 [95% CrI, 0.55-0.99]; absolute risk difference, -0.11 [95% CrI, -0.27 to -0.01]; moderate certainty) were associated with lower risk of endotracheal intubation (25 studies [3804 patients]). The risk of bias due to lack of blinding for intubation was deemed high.Conclusions and relevanceIn this network meta-analysis of trials of adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, treatment with noninvasive oxygenation strategies compared with standard oxygen therapy was associated with lower risk of death. Further research is needed to better understand the relative benefits of each strategy.

Project description:BackgroundExtracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is an important rescue therapy for patients with refractory respiratory or circulatory failure. High cost and associated complications warrant careful case selection. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes and factors associated with mortality in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure patients who received ECMO support, and to externally validate preexisting ECMO survival prediction scoring systems.MethodsThis retrospective study enrolled acute hypoxemic respiratory failure patients who received veno-venous (VV) or veno-arterial (VA) ECMO support at Siriraj Hospital (Bangkok, Thailand) from 2010 to 2020. All relevant baseline patient characteristics including ECMO survival prediction scores were recorded. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was employed to identify independent predictors of in-hospital mortality.ResultsOf a total of 65 patients, 34 (52%) were male, the median (IQR) age was 61 years (49-70 years), the median body mass index (BMI) was 22.6 kg/m2 (20.6-28 kg/m2), and the median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was 13 [11-16]. Forty-three patients (66%) received VV-ECMO, and 22 (34%) received VA-ECMO support. In-hospital mortality was 69%. Multivariate analysis identified a SOFA score >14, hospitalized >72 hours before ECMO initiation, PaO2/FiO2 ratio <60, and pH <7.2 as independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. These four parameters were combined to create the SHOP (S: SOFA >14, H: hospitalize >72 hours, O: PF ratio <60, and P: pH <7.2) score. Compared with three different preexisting ECMO survival prediction scoring systems, the SHOP score had the highest area under the curve (AUC) for predicting in-hospital mortality (overall: 0.873, VV-EMCO: 0.866, and VA-EMCO: 0.891).ConclusionsIn-hospital mortality among ECMO-supported patients was high at 69%. SOFA score >14, hospitalized >72 hours, PaO2/FiO2 ratio <60, and pH <7.2 were found to be independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. A SHOP score of 2 or higher significantly predicts in-hospital mortality in EMCO-supported patients.Trial registrationwww.clinicaltrials.gov (reg. No. NCT04031794).

Project description:IntroductionAcute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) is one of the most common causes of admission to paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) around the world, posing a serious health concern for the global community. Non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) is considered effective in reducing mortality and intubation rates in adults. However, it is not yet clear whether NRS is beneficial for children and which NRS modalities are most effective. This network meta-analysis aims to summarise existing evidence and compare the efficacy and safety of different NRS modalities in paediatric patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.Methods and analysisTo identify randomised controlled trials, we will perform a systematic search of key databases (Embase, PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL Complete and Web of Science) and registered clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and ISRCTN). To ensure the inclusion of the latest literature, an initial pilot search was conducted on 8 July 2024, and an updated search will be conducted after the main research work of this study. AHRF in children treated with NRS will be included. Hospital mortality, intubation rate, treatment failure rate and serious adverse events are critical outcomes closely related to patient-centredness and importance. Two authors will independently select the studies and extract the data. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool V.2.0. In order to compare the effects of different NRS modalities, pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis will be conducted using R software. Several subgroup analyses will be conducted, including analyses of different causes of AHRF. We will conduct sensitivity analyses by excluding studies with a high risk of bias and those involving neonates. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology, we will assess the certainty of the evidence for the effect estimates of all the outcomes.Ethics and disseminationSince this research is a network meta-analysis based on published literature, no formal ethics approval is required. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal for publication.Prospero registration numberCRD42024529804.

Project description:BackgroundWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-flow oxygen via nasal cannulae (HFNC) compared to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and/or standard oxygen in patients with acute, hypoxemic respiratory failure.MethodsWe reviewed randomized controlled trials from CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (inception to February 2016), conference proceedings, and relevant article reference lists. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted trial-level data from trials investigating HFNC in patients with acute, hypoxemic respiratory failure. Internal validity was assessed in duplicate using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The strength of evidence was assessed in duplicate using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Our primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included dyspnea, PaO2:FiO2 ratio, PaCO2, and pH. Safety outcomes included respiratory arrest, intubation, delirium, and skin breakdown.ResultsFrom 2023 screened citations, we identified seven trials (1771 patients) meeting inclusion criteria. All trials were at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. There was no evidence for a mortality difference in patients receiving HFNC vs. NIV and/or standard oxygen (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48, I 2 = 63%, five trials, 1629 patients). In subgroup analyses of HFNC compared to NIV or standard oxygen individually, mortality differences were not observed. Measures of patient tolerability were heterogeneous. The PaO2:FiO2 ratio at 6-12 h was significantly lower in patients receiving oxygen via HFNC compared to NIV or standard oxygen for hypoxemic respiratory failure (MD - 53.34, 95% CI - 71.95 to - 34.72, I 2 = 61%, 1143 patients). There were no differences in pH, PaCO2, or rates of intubation or cardio-respiratory arrest. Delirium and skin breakdown were infrequently reported in included trials.ConclusionsIn patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure HFNC was not associated with a difference in mortality compared to NIV or standard oxygen. Secondary outcomes including dyspnea, tolerance, and safety were not systematically reported. Residual heterogeneity and variable reporting of secondary outcomes limit the conclusions that can be made in this review. Prospective trials designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HFNC in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure are required.

Dataset Information

Respiratory support strategy in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Respiratory support strategy in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets