scholarly journals Correction to: Effects of early extubation followed by noninvasive ventilation versus standard extubation on the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in hypoxemic non-hypercapnic patients: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosanna Vaschetto ◽  
Alessandro Pecere ◽  
Gavin D. Perkins ◽  
Dipesh Mistry ◽  
Gianmaria Cammarota ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Noninvasive Ventilation ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Early Extubation ◽  
Randomized Controlled

scholarly journals Effects of early extubation followed by noninvasive ventilation versus standard extubation on the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in hypoxemic non-hypercapnic patients: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosanna Vaschetto ◽  
Alessandro Pecere ◽  
Gavin D. Perkins ◽  
Dipesh Mistry ◽  
Gianmaria Cammarota ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Noninvasive Ventilation ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Patient Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Early Extubation ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background Usefulness of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in weaning patients with non-hypercapnic hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (hARF) is unclear. The study aims to assess in patients with non-hypercapnic hARF, the efficacy of NIV after early extubation, compared to standard weaning. Methods In this individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify potentially eligible randomized controlled trials published from database inception to October 2020. To be eligible, studies had to include patients treated with NIV after early extubation and compared to conventional weaning in adult non-hypercapnic hARF patients. Anonymized individual patient data from eligible studies were provided by study investigators. Using one-step and two-step meta-analysis models we tested the difference in total days spent on invasive ventilation. Results We screened 1605 records. Six studies were included in quantitative synthesis. Overall, 459 participants (mean [SD] age, 62 [15] years; 269 [59%] males) recovering from hARF were included in the analysis (233 in the intervention group and 226 controls). Participants receiving NIV had a shorter duration of invasive mechanical ventilation compared to control group (mean difference, − 3.43; 95% CI − 5.17 to − 1.69 days, p < 0.001), a shorter duration of total days spent on mechanical ventilation (mean difference, − 2.04; 95% CI − 3.82 to − 0.27 days, p = 0.024), a reduced risk of ventilatory associated pneumonia (odds ratio, 0.24; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.71, p = 0.014), a reduction of time spent in ICU (time ratio, 0.81; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.96, p = 0.015) and in-hospital (time ratio, 0.81; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.95, p = 0.010), with no difference in ICU mortality. Conclusions Although primary studies are limited, using an individual patient data metanalysis approach, NIV after early extubation appears useful in reducing total days spent on invasive mechanical ventilation. Trial registration The protocol was registered to PROSPERO database on 12/06/2019 and available at PROSPERO website inserting the study code i.e., CRD42019133837.

scholarly journals Steroid therapy for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tarun Krishna Boppana ◽  
Saurabh Mittal ◽  
Karan Madan ◽  
Anant Mohan ◽  
Vijay Hadda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Steroid Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

There is an urgent need for effective treatment modalities for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Data for the use of steroids in COVID-19 is emerging. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the effectiveness of steroid administration in mortality reduction due to COVID-19 compared to the control group. A systematic search of the Pubmed and Embase databases was performed to extract randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the use of steroid therapy for COVID-19. An overall and subgroup (based upon the type of steroid) pooled mortality analysis was performed, and odds ratios were reported. Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Six RCTs, including 7707 patients, were selected for review. Three trials reported 28-day mortality, and two trials reported 21-day mortality, and one trial reported in-hospital mortality. There were 730 deaths among 2837 participants in the steroid group while 1342 deaths among 4870 patients randomized to the control group (Odds ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.58-1.00, p=0.05). The effect was significant in patients on oxygen or mechanical ventilation. There was no difference in the various preparations and doses of the steroids. There was heterogeneity among the trials as the I2 value was 53%, with a p-value of 0.06. There was no indication of increased serious adverse events. This meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrated that the use of systemic corticosteroids is associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 on oxygen or mechanical ventilation.

scholarly journals Tocilizumab in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
pp. jim-2021-002001
Author(s):  
Samiksha Gupta ◽  
Rana Prathap Padappayil ◽  
Agam Bansal ◽  
Salim Daouk ◽  
Brent Brown
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Tocilizumab is an interleukin receptor inhibitor that has been used in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. There are recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs that evaluated the effectiveness of tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation. RCTs comparing tocilizumab with the standard of care treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia not requiring mechanical ventilation at the time of administration were included for analysis. The primary outcome was a composite of mechanical ventilation or 28-day mortality and the secondary outcomes were 28-day mortality and major adverse events. A total of 6 RCTs were included for the analysis. Tocilizumab was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the primary composite outcome of mechanical ventilation or 28-day mortality (risk ratio (RR): 0.83 (95% CI: 0.74 to 0.92, I2=0, tau2=0). Treatment with tocilizumab did not show a statistically significant reduction in 28-day mortality (RR: 0.90 (95% CI: 0.76 to 1.07), I2=0, tau2=0) and rate of serious adverse events (RR: 0.82 (95% CI: 0.62 to 1.10), I2=0, tau2=0). Tocilizumab was associated with a decrease in the incidence of primary outcome, that is, mechanical ventilation or death at 28 days in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document