The predictive value of airway occlusion pressure at 100 msec (P0.1) on successful weaning from mechanical ventilation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroductionPredicting successful liberation from mechanical ventilation (MV) among critically ill patients receiving MV can be challenging. The current parameters used to predict successful extubation have shown variable predictive value. Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) has been proposed as a novel biomarker to help guide decision-making in readiness for liberation of MV following a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT). Current evidence on the predictive ability of BNP has been uncertain, and BNP has not been integrated into clinical practice guidelines.Methods and analysisWe will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the value of BNP during SBT to predict success of liberation from MV. A search strategy will be developed in collaboration with a research librarian, and electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science) and additional sources will be searched. Search themes will include: (1) BNP and (2) weaning, extubation and/or liberation from MV. Citation screening, selection, quality assessment and data abstraction will be performed in duplicate. The primary outcome will be liberation from MV; secondary outcomes will include time to reintubation, mortality, MV duration, total and postextubation intensive care unit (ICU) stay, hospitalisation duration, tracheostomy rate, ICU-acquired weakness rate and ventilator-free days. Primary statistical analysis will include predictive value of BNP by receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity/specificity and likelihood ratios for combination of BNP and SBT parameters for failure of liberation from MV. Secondary statistical analysis will be performed on individual and combinations of extracted metrics.Ethics and disseminationOur review will add knowledge by mapping the current body of evidence on the value of BNP testing for prediction of successful liberation from MV, and describe knowledge gaps and research priorities. Our findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication, presentation at a scientific congress, through regional/national organisations and social media. Research ethics approval is not required.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018087474.

Download Full-text

Estimating actual inspiratory muscle pressure from airway occlusion pressure at 100 msec

Journal of Mechanical Ventilation ◽

10.53097/jmv.10003 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 1 (1) ◽

pp. 8-13

Author(s):

Natsumi Hamahata ◽

Ryota Sato ◽

Kimiyo Yamasaki ◽

Sophie Pereira ◽

Ehab Daoud

Keyword(s):

Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Respiratory Failure ◽

Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Normal Lung ◽

P Value ◽

Occlusion Pressure ◽

Mechanical Ventilators ◽

Airway Occlusion ◽

Esophageal Balloon ◽

Airway Occlusion Pressure

Background: Quantification of the patient’s respiratory effort during mechanical ventilation is very important, and calculating the actual muscle pressure (Pmus) during mechanical ventilation is a cumbersome task and usually requires an esophageal balloon manometry. Airway occlusion pressure at 100 milliseconds (P0.1) can easily be obtained non-invasively. There has been no study investigating the association between Pmus and P0.1. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether P0.1 correlates to Pmus and can be used to estimate actual Pmus Materials and Methods: A bench study using lung simulator (ASL 5000) to simulate an active breathing patient with Pmus from 1 to 30 cmH2O by increments of 1 was conducted. Twenty active breaths were measured in each Pmus. The clinical scenario was constructed as a normal lung with a fixed setting of compliances of 60 mL/cmH2O and resistances of 10 cmH2O/l/sec. All experiments were conducted using the pressure support ventilation mode (PSV) on a Hamilton-G5 ventilator (Hamilton Medical AG, Switzerland), Puritan Bennett 840TM (Covidien-Nellcor, CA) and Avea (CareFusion, CA). Main results: There was significant correlation between P 0.1 and Pmus (correlation coefficient = - 0.992, 95% CI: - 0.995 to -0.988, P-value<0.001). The equation was calculated as follows: Pmus = -2.99 x (P0.1) + 0.53 Conclusion: Estimation of Pmus using P 0.1 as a substitute is feasible, available, and reliable. Estimation of Pmus has multiple implications, especially in weaning of mechanical ventilation, adjusting ventilator support, and calculating respiratory mechanics during invasive mechanical ventilation. Keywords: P 0.1, Inspiratory occlusion pressure, WOB, Esophageal balloon, mechanical ventilators, respiratory failure Keywords: P 0.1, P mus, Inspiratory occlusion pressure, WOB, Esophageal balloon, mechanical ventilators, respiratory failure

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Predictive value of human papillomavirus in oropharyngeal carcinoma treated with radiotherapy: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 30 trials.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.718002023.793476686 ◽

2013 ◽

Author(s):

Sandra Nuyts

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Human Papillomavirus ◽

Predictive Value ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Oropharyngeal Carcinoma

Download Full-text

Effect of timing of intubation on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized cohort studies

Critical Care ◽

10.1186/s13054-021-03540-6 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 25 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Eleni Papoutsi ◽

Vassilis G. Giannakoulis ◽

Eleni Xourgia ◽

Christina Routsi ◽

Anastasia Kotanidou ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Critically Ill ◽

Critically Ill Patients ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Mortality And Morbidity ◽

Icu Admission ◽

All Cause Mortality ◽

Detectable Difference

Abstract Background Although several international guidelines recommend early over late intubation of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), this issue is still controversial. We aimed to investigate the effect (if any) of timing of intubation on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 by carrying out a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods PubMed and Scopus were systematically searched, while references and preprint servers were explored, for relevant articles up to December 26, 2020, to identify studies which reported on mortality and/or morbidity of patients with COVID-19 undergoing early versus late intubation. “Early” was defined as intubation within 24 h from intensive care unit (ICU) admission, while “late” as intubation at any time after 24 h of ICU admission. All-cause mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) were the primary outcomes of the meta-analysis. Pooled risk ratio (RR), pooled mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020222147). Results A total of 12 studies, involving 8944 critically ill patients with COVID-19, were included. There was no statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality between patients undergoing early versus late intubation (3981 deaths; 45.4% versus 39.1%; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.99–1.15, p = 0.08). This was also the case for duration of MV (1892 patients; MD − 0.58 days, 95% CI − 3.06 to 1.89 days, p = 0.65). In a sensitivity analysis using an alternate definition of early/late intubation, intubation without versus with a prior trial of high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive mechanical ventilation was still not associated with a statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality (1128 deaths; 48.9% versus 42.5%; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99–1.25, p = 0.08). Conclusions The synthesized evidence suggests that timing of intubation may have no effect on mortality and morbidity of critically ill patients with COVID-19. These results might justify a wait-and-see approach, which may lead to fewer intubations. Relevant guidelines may therefore need to be updated.

Download Full-text