Effects of alveolar recruitment maneuvers on clinical outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Citações na Scopus
92
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2014
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
SPRINGER
Autores
FIGUEIRO, Mabel
LARANJEIRA, Ligia
OLIVEIRA, Claudia
BUEHLER, Anna Maria
BERWANGER, Otavio
Citação
INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE, v.40, n.9, p.1227-1240, 2014
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
To assess the effects of alveolar recruitment maneuvers (ARMs) on clinical outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We conducted a search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science (from inception to July 2014) databases for all (i.e. no language restriction) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of ARMs versus no ARMs in adults with ARDS. Four teams of two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of the studies identified during the search and appraised the risk of bias and extracted data from those which were assessed as meeting the inclusion criteria. Data were pooled using the random-effects model. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to establish monitoring boundaries to limit global type I error due to repetitive testing for our primary outcome (in-hospital mortality). The GRADE system was used to rate the quality of evidence. Our database search identified ten RCTs (1,594 patients, 612 events) which satisfied the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis assessing the effect of ARMs on in-hospital mortality showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.84 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.74-0.95; I (2) = 0 %], although the quality of evidence was considered to be low due to the risk of bias in the included trials and the indirectness of the evidence-that is, ARMs were usually conducted together with other ventilatory interventions which may affect the outcome of interest. There were no differences in the rates of barotrauma (RR 1.11; 95 % CI 0.78-1.57; I (2) = 0 %) or need for rescue therapies (RR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.41-1.40; I (2) = 56 %). Most trials found no difference between groups in terms of duration of mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital. The TSA showed that the available evidence for the effect of ARMs on in-hospital mortality is precise in the case of a type I error of 5 %, but it is not precise with a type I error of 1 %. Although ARMs may decrease the mortality of patients with ARDS without increasing the risk for major adverse events, current evidence is not definitive. Large-scale ongoing trials addressing this question may provide data better applicable to clinical practice.
Palavras-chave
Acute respiratory distress syndrome, Recruitment maneuver, Mechanical ventilation, Systematic review, Meta-analysis, Randomized
Referências
  1. *AM THOR SOC, 1999, AM J RESP CRIT CARE, V160, P2118
  2. Amato MBP, 1998, NEW ENGL J MED, V338, P347, DOI 10.1056/NEJM199802053380602
  3. *ART INV, 2012, TRIALS, V13, P153, DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-13-153
  4. Azevedo LCP, 2013, CRIT CARE, V17, DOI 10.1186/cc12594
  5. Barbas CSV, 2005, CURR OPIN CRIT CARE, V11, P18, DOI 10.1097/00075198-200502000-00004
  6. BERNARD GR, 1994, AM J RESP CRIT CARE, V149, P818
  7. Borges JB, 2006, AM J RESP CRIT CARE, V174, P268, DOI 10.1164/rccm.200506-97OC
  8. Briel M, 2010, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V303, P865, DOI 10.1001/jama.2010.218
  9. Brower Roy G, 2003, Crit Care Med, V31, P2592
  10. Brower RG, 2004, NEW ENGL J MED, V351, P327
  11. Chiumello D, 1999, AM J RESP CRIT CARE, V160, P109
  12. de Matos GFJ, 2012, CRIT CARE, V16, DOI 10.1186/cc10602
  13. Devereaux PJ, 2005, BRIT MED J, V331, P313, DOI 10.1136/bmj.38503.623646.8F
  14. Egger M, 1998, BRIT MED J, V316, P61
  15. Fan E, 2008, AM J RESP CRIT CARE, V178, P1156, DOI 10.1164/rccm.200802-335OC
  16. Ferguson ND, 2012, INTENS CARE MED, V38, P1573, DOI 10.1007/s00134-012-2682-1
  17. Gattinoni L, 2010, CRIT CARE MED, V38, pS539, DOI 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181f1fcf7
  18. Guyatt GH, 2011, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V64, P380, DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.011
  19. HIGGENS JPT, 2009, COCHRANE HANDBOOK FO
  20. Higgins JPT, 2003, BRIT MED J, V327, P557, DOI 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
  21. HODGSON C, 2009, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, V15, DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD006667
  22. HODGSON C, 2012, MULTICENTRE TRIAL OP
  23. Hodgson CL, 2011, CRIT CARE, V15, DOI 10.1186/cc10249
  24. Huh JW, 2009, CRIT CARE, V13, DOI 10.1186/cc7725
  25. KACMAREK RM, 2007, ARDSNET PROTOCOL VS
  26. Lim CM, 2003, CRIT CARE MED, V31, P411, DOI 10.1097/01.CCM.0000048631.88155.39
  27. Liu WL, 2011, RESPIROLOGY, V16, P258
  28. Long Yun, 2006, Zhonghua Jiehe He Huxi Zazhi, V29, P549
  29. MEADE MO, 2002, AM J RESP CRIT CARE, V165, pA683
  30. Meade MO, 2008, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V299, P637, DOI 10.1001/jama.299.6.637
  31. Moher D, 2009, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V62, P1006, DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005
  32. MUSCEDERE JG, 1994, AM J RESP CRIT CARE, V149, P1327
  33. Brower RG, 2000, NEW ENGL J MED, V342, P1301
  34. Oczenski W, 2004, ANESTHESIOLOGY, V101, P620, DOI 10.1097/00000542-200409000-00010
  35. Park KJ, 2003, YONSEI MED J, V44, P219
  36. Phua J, 2009, AM J RESP CRIT CARE, V179, P220, DOI 10.1164/rccm.200805-722OC
  37. Pogue JM, 1997, CONTROL CLIN TRIALS, V18, P580, DOI 10.1016/S0197-2456(97)00051-2
  38. Sigurdsson MI, 2013, ACTA ANAESTH SCAND, V57, P37, DOI 10.1111/aas.12001
  39. Sterne JAC, 2001, BRIT MED J, V323, P101, DOI 10.1136/bmj.323.7304.101
  40. STEWART TE, 2007, AM J RESP CRIT CARE, V175, pA943
  41. SUZUMURA EA, 2013, INTENS CARE MED S, V39, P374, DOI 10.1007/S00134-013-3095-5
  42. Villar J, 2006, CRIT CARE MED, V34, P1311, DOI 10.1097/01.CCM.0000215598.84885.01
  43. Wang Xiao-zhi, 2007, Zhonghua Jiehe He Huxi Zazhi, V30, P44
  44. Xi XM, 2010, CHINESE MED J-PEKING, V123, P3100, DOI 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.2010.21.027