scholarly journals Mucoactive agents for acute respiratory failure in the critically ill: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Thorax ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (8) ◽  
pp. 623-631 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan Anand ◽  
Daniel F McAuley ◽  
Bronagh Blackwood ◽  
Chee Yap ◽  
Brenda ONeill ◽  
...  

PurposeAcute respiratory failure (ARF) is a common cause of admission to intensive care units (ICUs). Mucoactive agents are medications that promote mucus clearance and are frequently administered in patients with ARF, despite a lack of evidence to underpin clinical decision making. The aim of this systematic review was to determine if the use of mucoactive agents in patients with ARF improves clinical outcomes.MethodsWe searched electronic and grey literature (January 2020). Two reviewers independently screened, selected, extracted data and quality assessed studies. We included trials of adults receiving ventilatory support for ARF and involving at least one mucoactive agent compared with placebo or standard care. Outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation. Meta-analysis was undertaken using random-effects modelling and certainty of the evidence was assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.ResultsThirteen randomised controlled trials were included (1712 patients), investigating four different mucoactive agents. Mucoactive agents showed no effect on duration of mechanical ventilation (seven trials, mean difference (MD) −1.34, 95% CI −2.97 to 0.29, I2=82%, very low certainty) or mortality, hospital stay and ventilator-free days. There was an effect on reducing ICU length of stay in the mucoactive agent groups (10 trials, MD −3.22, 95% CI −5.49 to −0.96, I2=89%, very low certainty).ConclusionOur findings do not support the use of mucoactive agents in critically ill patients with ARF. The existing evidence is of low quality. High-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to determine the role of specific mucoactive agents in critically ill patients with ARF.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018095408.

2021 ◽  
pp. 2002928
Author(s):  
Xu Zhao ◽  
Huaping Xiao ◽  
Feng Dai ◽  
Daniel Brodie ◽  
Lingzhong Meng

BackgroundThe optimal oxygenation in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients remains unclear.MethodsRandomised controlled trials investigating different oxygenation goal-directed mechanical ventilation in critically ill adult patients were eligible. The trinary classification classified oxygenation goals into conservative (PaO2=55–90 mmHg), moderate (PaO2=90–150 mmHg), and liberal (PaO2>150 mmHg). The quadruple classification further divided the conservative goal from the trinary classification into far-conservative (PaO2=55–70 mmHg) and conservative (PaO2=70–90 mmHg) goals. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. The secondary outcomes included intensive care unit, hospital, and 90-day mortalities. The effectiveness was estimated by the relative risk (RR) and 95% credible interval (CrI) using network meta-analysis and visualised using SUCRA scores and survival curves.ResultsWe identified eight eligible studies involving 2532 patients. There were no differences between conservative and moderate goals (RR, 1.08; 95% CrI, 0.85 to 1.36; moderate quality), between moderate and liberal goals (RR, 0.83; 95% CrI, 0.61 to 1.10, low quality), and between conservative and liberal goals (RR, 0.89; 95% CrI, 0.61 to 1.30, low quality) based on the trinary classification. No differences in secondary outcomes among the different goals. The results were consistent between the trinary and quadruple classifications. The SUCRA scores and survival curves suggested that the moderate goal in the trinary and quadruple classifications and the conservative goal in the quadruple classification may be superior to the liberal and far-conservative goals.ConclusionsDifferent oxygenation goals do not lead to different mortalities in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. The potential superiority of maintaining PaO2 in the range of 70–150 mmHg remains to be validated.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document