Lung ventilation strategies for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Citations Over TimeTop 10% of 2016 papers

Abstract

To identify the best lung ventilation strategy for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we performed a network meta-analysis. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Web of Science were searched, and 36 eligible articles were included. Compared with higher tidal volumes with FiO2-guided lower positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP], the hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality were 0.624 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.419-0.98) for lower tidal volumes with FiO2-guided lower PEEP and prone positioning and 0.572 (0.34-0.968) for pressure-controlled ventilation with FiO2-guided lower PEEP. Lower tidal volumes with FiO2-guided higher PEEP and prone positioning had the greatest potential to reduce mortality, and the possibility of receiving the first ranking was 61.6%. Permissive hypercapnia, recruitment maneuver, and low airway pressures were most likely to be the worst in terms of all-cause mortality. Compared with higher tidal volumes with FiO2-guided lower PEEP, pressure-controlled ventilation with FiO2-guided lower PEEP and lower tidal volumes with FiO2-guided lower PEEP and prone positioning ventilation are associated with lower mortality in ARDS patients. Lower tidal volumes with FiO2-guided higher PEEP and prone positioning ventilation and lower tidal volumes with pressure-volume (P-V) static curve-guided individual PEEP are potential optimal strategies for ARDS patients.

Related Papers

• → Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology – A systematic review(2009)78 cited
• → Appraisal of systematic reviews on the management of peri‐implant diseases with two methodological tools(2018)24 cited
• → [Introduction to PRISMA-CI extension statement and checklist systematic reviews on complex interventions].(2019)6 cited
• [The practice of systematic reviews. I. Introduction].(1999)
• Bias within systematic and non-systematic literature reviews: the case of the Balanced Scorecard(2017)