Long-term survival of critically ill patients treated with prolonged mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (7) ◽  
pp. 544-553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Damuth ◽  
Jessica A Mitchell ◽  
Jason L Bartock ◽  
Brian W Roberts ◽  
Stephen Trzeciak
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival

scholarly journals 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 ◽  
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.

665 PROPHYLACTIC THORACIC DUCT OBSTRUCTION DURING ESOPHAGECTOMY: THE IMPACT ON PERIOPERATIVE RISKS AND LONG-TERM SURVIVAL. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Clara Santos ◽  
Laura Santos ◽  
Leticia Datrino ◽  
Guilherme Tavares ◽  
Luca Tristão ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Thoracic Duct ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Thoracic Duct Ligation ◽  
Duct Ligation

Abstract   During esophagectomy for cancer, there is no consensus if prophylactic thoracic duct ligation (TDL), with or without thoracic duct resection (TDR), could influence the perioperative outcomes and long-term survival. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared patients who went through esophagectomy associated or not to ligation or resection of the thoracic duct. Methods A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library Central and Lilacs (BVS). The inclusion criteria were: (1) studies that compare thoracic duct ligation, with or without resection, and non-thoracic duct ligation; (2) involve adult patients with esophageal cancer; (3) articles that analyses the outcomes—perioperative complications, perioperative mortality, chylothorax development and overall survival; (4) only clinical trials and cohort were accepted. A 95% confidence interval (CI) was used, and random-effects model was performed. Results Fifteen articles were selected, comprising 6,249 patients. TDL did not reduce the risk for chylothorax (Risk difference [RD]: -0.01; 95%CI: −0.02, 0.00). Also, TDL did not influence the risk for complications (RD: -0.02; 95%CI: −0.11, 0.07); mortality (RD: 0.00; 95%CI: −0.00, 0.00); and reoperation rate (RD: -0.01; 95%CI: −0.02, 0.00). TDR was associated with higher risk for postoperative complications (RD: 0.1; 95%CI 0.00, 0.19); chylothorax (RD: 0.02; 95%CI 0.00, 0.03). Both TDL and TDR did not influence the overall survival rate (TDL: HR: 1.17; 95%CI: 0.86, 1.48; and TDR: HR: 1.16; 95%CI: 0.8, 1.51). Conclusion Thoracic duct obliteration with or without its resection during esophagectomy does not change long term survival. Nonetheless, TDR increased the risk for postoperative complications and chylothorax.

Protein C levels can be forecasted by global haemostatic tests in critically ill patients and predict long-term survival

2005 ◽  
Vol 116 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunnar Nilsson ◽  
Jan Astermark ◽  
Stefan Lethagen ◽  
Einar Vernersson ◽  
Erik Berntorp
Keyword(s):  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Protein C ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival

723 TWO- VS. THREE-FIELD LYMPHADENECTOMY FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF SHORT- AND LONG-TERM OUTCOMES.

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Letícia Nogueira Datrino ◽  
Clara Lucato Santos ◽  
Guilherme Tavares ◽  
Luca Schiliró Tristão ◽  
Maria Carolina Andrade Serafim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Extended Lymphadenectomy ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Short And Long Term

Abstract   Nowadays, there is still no consensus about the benefits of adding neck lymphadenectomy to the traditional two-fields esophagectomy. An extended lymphadenectomy could potentially increase operation time and the risks for postoperative complications. However, extended lymphadenectomy allows resection of cervical nodes at risk for metastases, potentially increasing long-term survival rates. This study aims to estimate whether cervical prophylactic lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer influences short- and long-term outcomes through a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis. Methods A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library Central, and Lilacs (BVS). The inclusion criteria were: (1) studies that compare two-field vs. three-field esophagectomy; (2) adults (>18 years); (3) articles that analyze short- or long-term outcomes; and (4) clinical trials or cohort studies. The results were summarized by forest plots, with effect size (ES) or risk difference (RD) and 95% CI. Results Twenty-five articles were selected, comprising 8,954 patients. Three-field lymphadenectomy was associated to higher operation time (ES: -1.51; 95%CI -1.84, −1.18) and higher blood loss (ES: -0.24; 95%CI: −0.37, −0.11). Also, neck lymphadenectomy inputs additional risk for pulmonary complications (RD: 0.03; 95%CI: 0.01, 0.05). No difference was noted for morbidity (RD: 0.01; 95%CI: −0.01, 0.03); leak (−0.02; 95%CI: −0.07, 0.03); postoperative mortality (RD: 0.00; 95%CI: −0.00, 0.01), and hospital stay (ES: -0.05; 95%CI -0.20, 0.10). Three-field lymphadenectomy allowed higher number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD: -1.51; 95%CI -1.84, −1.18), but did not increase the overall survival (HR: 1.11; 95%CI: 0.96, 1.26). Conclusion Prophylactic neck lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer should be performed with caution once it is associated with poorer short-term outcomes compared to traditional two-field lymphadenectomy and does not improve long-term survival. Future esophageal cancer studies should determine the subgroup of patients who could benefit from prophylactic neck lymphadenectomy in long-term outcomes.

scholarly journals Gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis for critically ill patients: a clinical practice guideline

BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. l6722 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhikang Ye ◽  
Annika Reintam Blaser ◽  
Lyubov Lytvyn ◽  
Ying Wang ◽  
Gordon H Guyatt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Gastrointestinal Bleeding ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bleeding ◽  
Weak Recommendation ◽  
Guideline Panel ◽  
Bleeding Prophylaxis

AbstractClinical questionWhat is the role of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (stress ulcer prophylaxis) in critically ill patients? This guideline was prompted by the publication of a new large randomised controlled trial.Current practiceGastric acid suppression with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) is commonly done to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Existing guidelines vary in their recommendations of which population to treat and which agent to use.RecommendationsThis guideline panel makes a weak recommendation for using gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients at high risk (>4%) of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, and a weak recommendation for not using prophylaxis in patients at lower risk of clinically important bleeding (≤4%). The panel identified risk categories based on evidence, with variable certainty regarding risk factors. The panel suggests using a PPI rather than a H2RA (weak recommendation) and recommends against using sucralfate (strong recommendation).How this guideline was createdA guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations using standards for trustworthy guidelines and the GRADE approach. The recommendations are based on a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis. A weak recommendation means that both options are reasonable.The evidenceThe linked systematic review and network meta-analysis estimated the benefit and harm of these medications in 12 660 critically ill patients in 72 trials. Both PPIs and H2RAs reduce the risk of clinically important bleeding. The effect is larger in patients at higher bleeding risk (those with a coagulopathy, chronic liver disease, or receiving mechanical ventilation but not enteral nutrition or two or more of mechanical ventilation with enteral nutrition, acute kidney injury, sepsis, and shock) (moderate certainty). PPIs and H2RAs might increase the risk of pneumonia (low certainty). They probably do not have an effect on mortality (moderate certainty), length of hospital stay, or any other important outcomes. PPIs probably reduce the risk of bleeding more than H2RAs (moderate certainty).Understanding the recommendationIn most critically ill patients, the reduction in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding from gastric acid suppressants is closely balanced with the possibility of pneumonia. Clinicians should consider individual patient values, risk of bleeding, and other factors such as medication availability when deciding whether to use gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis. Visual overviews provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of the options in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available on MAGICapp.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document