scholarly journals Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy (GDHT) in surgical patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of GDHT on post-operative pulmonary complications

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahilanandan Dushianthan ◽  
Martin Knight ◽  
Peter Russell ◽  
Michael PW Grocott
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Pulmonary Oedema ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pulmonary Complications ◽  
Surgical Patients ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Pulmonary Infections

Abstract Background Perioperative goal-directed haemodynamic therapy (GDHT), defined as the administration of fluids with or without inotropes or vasoactive agents against explicit measured goals to augment blood flow, has been evaluated in many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) over the past four decades. Reported post-operative pulmonary complications commonly include chest infection or pneumonia, atelectasis, acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute lung injury, aspiration pneumonitis, pulmonary embolism, and pulmonary oedema. Despite the substantial clinical literature in this area, it remains unclear whether their incidence is reduced by GDHT. This systematic review aims to determine the effect of GDHT on the respiratory outcomes listed above, in surgical patients. Methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and clinical trial registries up until January 2020. We included all RCTs reporting pulmonary outcomes. The primary outcome was post-operative pulmonary complications and secondary outcomes were specific pulmonary complications and intra-operative fluid input. Data synthesis was performed on Review Manager and heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. Results We identified 66 studies with 9548 participants reporting pulmonary complications. GDHT resulted in a significant reduction in total pulmonary complications (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.92). The incidence of pulmonary infections, reported in 45 studies with 6969 participants, was significantly lower in the GDHT group (OR 0.72, CI 0.60 to 0.86). Pulmonary oedema was recorded in 23 studies with 3205 participants and was less common in the GDHT group (OR 0.47, CI 0.30 to 0.73). There were no differences in the incidences of pulmonary embolism or acute respiratory distress syndrome. Sub-group analyses demonstrated: (i) benefit from GDHT in general/abdominal/mixed and cardiothoracic surgery but not in orthopaedic or vascular surgery; and (ii) benefit from fluids with inotropes and/or vasopressors in combination but not from fluids alone. Overall, the GDHT group received more colloid (+280 ml) and less crystalloid (−375 ml) solutions than the control group. Due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity, we downgraded this evidence to moderate. Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that the use of GDHT using fluids with inotropes and/or vasopressors, but not fluids alone, reduces the development of post-operative pulmonary infections and pulmonary oedema in general, abdominal and cardiothoracic surgical patients. This evidence was graded as moderate. PROSPERO registry reference: CRD42020170361

scholarly journals Corticosteroid treatment for early acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yohei Hirano ◽  
Shunsuke Madokoro ◽  
Yutaka Kondo ◽  
Ken Okamoto ◽  
Hiroshi Tanaka
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Corticosteroid Treatment ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Secondary Outcomes

Abstract Background The effect of corticosteroid treatment on survival outcome in early acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is still debated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the efficacy of prolonged corticosteroid therapy in early ARDS. Methods We assessed the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science databases from inception to August 1, 2020. We included RCTs that compared prolonged corticosteroid therapy with control treatment wherein the intervention was started within 72 h of ARDS diagnosis. Two investigators independently screened the citations and conducted the data extraction. The primary outcomes were all-cause 28- or 30-day mortality and 60-day mortality. Several endpoints such as ventilator-free days and adverse events were set as the secondary outcomes. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models were used to report pooled odds ratios (ORs). Results Among the 4 RCTs included, all referred to the all-cause 28- or 30-day mortality. In the corticosteroid group, 108 of 385 patients (28.1%) died, while 139 of 357 (38.9%) died in the control group (pooled OR, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44–0.85). Three RCTs mentioned the all-cause 60-day mortality. In the corticosteroid group, 78 of 300 patients (26.0%) died, while 101 of 265 (38.1%) died in the control group (pooled OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.40–0.83). For secondary outcomes, corticosteroid treatment versus control significantly prolonged the ventilator-free days (4 RCTs: mean difference, 3.74; 95% CI, 1.53–5.95) but caused hyperglycemia (3 RCTs: pooled OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.04–2.21). Conclusions Prolonged corticosteroid treatment in early ARDS improved the survival outcomes. Trial registration PROSPERO, CRD42020195969

scholarly journals Optimal Positive End Expiratory Pressure Levels in Ventilated Patients Without Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Zhou ◽  
Zhimin Lin ◽  
Xiumei Deng ◽  
Baiyun Liu ◽  
Yu Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Positive End Expiratory Pressure ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Ventilated Patients

Background: To find the optimal positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) in mechanical ventilated patients without Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), we conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different level of PEEP based on a novel classification of PEEP level: ZEEP group (PEEP = 0 cm H2O); lower PEEP group (PEEP = 1–6 cm H2O); intermediate PEEP group (PEEP = 7–10 cm H2O); higher PEEP group (PEEP > 10 cm H2O).Result: Twenty eight eligible studies with 2,712 patients were included. There were no significant differences in the duration of mechanical ventilation between higher and intermediate PEEP (MD: 0.020, 95% CI: −0.14, 0.28), higher and lower PEEP (MD: −0.010, 95% CI: −0.23, 0.22), higher PEEP and ZEEP (MD: 0.010, 95% CI: −0.40, 0.22), intermediate and lower PEEP (MD: −0.040, 95% CI: −0.18, 0.040), intermediate PEEP and ZEEP (MD: −0.010, 95% CI: −0.42, 0.10), lower PEEP and ZEEP (MD: 0.020, 95% CI: −0.32, 0.13), respectively. Higher PEEP was associated with significantly higher PaO2/FiO2 ratio(PFR) when compared to ZEEP (MD: 73.24, 95% CI: 11.03, 130.7), and higher incidence of pneumothorax when compared to intermediate PEEP, lower PEEP and ZEEP (OR: 2.91e + 12, 95% CI: 40.3, 1.76e + 39; OR: 1.85e + 12, 95% CI: 29.2, 1.18e + 39; and OR: 1.44e + 12, 95% CI: 16.9, 8.70e + 38, respectively). There was no association between PEEP levels and other secondary outcomes.Conclusion: We identified higher PEEP was associated with significantly higher PFR and higher incidence of pneumothorax. Nonetheless, in terms of other outcomes, no significant differences were detected among four levels of PEEP.Systematic Review Registration: The study had registered on an international prospective register of systematic reviews, PROSPERO, on 09 April 2021, identifier: [CRD42021241745].

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document