-
Medicine May 2019Traumatic vascular injury is caused by explosions and projectiles (bullets and shrapnel); it may affect the arteries and veins of the limbs, and is common in wartime,...
BACKGROUND
Traumatic vascular injury is caused by explosions and projectiles (bullets and shrapnel); it may affect the arteries and veins of the limbs, and is common in wartime, triggering bleeding, and ischemia. The increasing use of high-energy weapons in modern warfare is associated with severe vascular injuries.
METHODS
To summarize the current evidence of diagnosis and treatment for traumatic vascular injury of limbs, for saving limbs and lives, and put forward some new insights, we comprehensively consulted literatures and analyzed progress in injury diagnosis and wound treatment, summarized the advanced treatments now available, especially in wartime, and explored the principal factors in play in an effort to optimize clinical outcomes.
RESULTS
Extremity vascular trauma poses several difficult dilemmas in diagnosis and treatment. The increasing use of high-energy weapons in modern warfare is associated with severe vascular injuries. Any delay in treatment may lead to loss of limbs or death. The development of diagnose and treat vascular injury of extremities are the clinical significance to the tip of military medicine, such as the use of fast, cheap, low invasive diagnostic methods, repairing severe vascular injury as soon as possible, using related technologies actively (fasciotomy, etc).
CONCLUSION
We point out the frontier of the diagnosis and treatment of traumatic vascular injury, also with a new model of wartime injury treatment in American (forward surgical teams and combat support hospitals), French military surgeons regarding management of war-related vascular wounds and Chinese military ("3 districts and 7 grades" model). Many issues remain to be resolved by further experience and investigation.
Topics: Amputation, Surgical; Ankle Brachial Index; Blast Injuries; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Decompression, Surgical; Emergency Medicine; Extremities; Fasciotomy; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Military Medicine; Military Personnel; Retrospective Studies; Skin Transplantation; Time Factors; Trauma Severity Indices; United States; Vascular Surgical Procedures; Vascular System Injuries
PubMed: 31045795
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000015406 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Sep 2016Transtracheal jet ventilation (TTJV) is recommended in several airway guidelines as a potentially life-saving procedure during the 'Can't Intubate Can't Oxygenate'... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Transtracheal jet ventilation (TTJV) is recommended in several airway guidelines as a potentially life-saving procedure during the 'Can't Intubate Can't Oxygenate' (CICO) emergency. Some studies have questioned its effectiveness.
METHODS
Our goal was to determine the complication rates of TTJV in the CICO emergency compared with the emergency setting where CICO is not described (non-CICO emergency) or elective surgical setting. Several databases of published and unpublished literature were searched systematically for studies describing TTJV in human subjects. Complications were categorized as device failure, barotrauma (including subcutaneous emphysema), and miscellaneous. Device failure was defined by the inability to place and/or use the TTJV device, not patient survival.
RESULTS
Forty-four studies (428 procedures) met the inclusion criteria. Four studies included both emergency and elective procedures. Thirty studies described 132 emergency TTJV procedures; 90 were CICO emergencies. Eighteen studies described 296 elective TTJV procedures. Device failure occurred in 42% of CICO emergency vs 0% of non-CICO emergency (P<0.001) and 0.3% of elective procedures (P<0.001). Barotrauma occurred in 32% of CICO emergency vs 7% of non-CICO emergency (P<0.001) and 8% of elective procedures (P<0.001). The total number of procedures with any complication was 51% of CICO emergency vs 7% of non-CICO emergency (P<0.001) and 8% of elective procedures (P<0.001). Several reports described TTJV-related subcutaneous emphysema hampering subsequent attempts at surgical airway or tracheal intubation.
CONCLUSIONS
TTJV is associated with a high risk of device failure and barotrauma in the CICO emergency. Guidelines and recommendations supporting the use of TTJV in CICO should be reconsidered.
Topics: Airway Management; Airway Obstruction; Barotrauma; Emergencies; Equipment Failure; High-Frequency Jet Ventilation; Humans; Intubation, Intratracheal
PubMed: 27566790
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aew192 -
Journal of Critical Care Oct 2021To determine whether higher positive end- expiratory pressure (PEEP) could provide a survival advantage for patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effect of different levels of PEEP on mortality in ICU patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether higher positive end- expiratory pressure (PEEP) could provide a survival advantage for patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) compared with lower PEEP.
METHODS
Eligible studies were identified through searches of Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Medline, and Wanfang database from inception up to 1 June 2021. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used in this meta-analysis.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified for further evaluation. Higher and lower PEEP arms included 1330 patients and 1650 patients, respectively. A mean level of 9.6±3.4 cmHO was applied in the higher PEEP groups and 1.9±2.6 cmHO was used in the lower PEEP groups. Higher PEEP, compared with lower PEEP, was not associated with reduction of all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.91-1.18; P =0.627), and 28-day mortality (RR 1.07 ; 95% CI 0.92-1.24; P =0.365). In terms of risk of ARDS (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.24-0.78; P =0.005), duration of intensive care unit (MD -1.04; 95%CI-1.36 to -0.73; P < 0.00001), and oxygenation (MD 40.30; 95%CI 0.94 to 79.65; P = 0.045), higher PEEP was superior to lower PEEP. Besides, the pooled analysis showed no significant differences between groups both in the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 0.00; 95%CI-0.13 to 0.13; P = 0.996) and hospital stay (MD -0.66; 95%CI-1.94 to 0.61; P = 0.309). More importantly, lower PEEP did not increase the risk of pneumonia, atelectasis, barotrauma, hypoxemia, or hypotension among patients compared with higher PEEP. The TSA analysis showed that the results of all-cause mortality and 28-day mortality might be false-negative results.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest that a lower PEEP ventilation strategy was non-inferior to a higher PEEP ventilation strategy in ICU patients without ARDS, with no increased risk of all-cause mortality and 28-day mortality. Further high-quality RCTs should be performed to confirm these findings.
Topics: Humans; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Distress Syndrome
PubMed: 34274832
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2021.06.015 -
Diving and Hyperbaric Medicine Jun 2019Physiological changes are induced by immersion, swimming and using diving equipment. Divers must be fit to dive. Using medication may impact the capacity to adapt to...
BACKGROUND
Physiological changes are induced by immersion, swimming and using diving equipment. Divers must be fit to dive. Using medication may impact the capacity to adapt to hyperbaric conditions. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the interaction of diving/hyperbaric conditions and medication and to provide basic heuristics to support decision making regarding fitness to dive in medicated divers.
METHODS
This was a systematic review of human and animal studies of medications in the hyperbaric environment. Studies were subdivided into those describing a medication/hyperbaric environment interaction and those concerned with prevention of diving disorders. Studies without a relation to diving with compressed air, and those concerning oxygen toxicity, hyperbaric oxygen therapy or the treatment of decompression sickness were excluded.
RESULTS
Forty-four studies matched the inclusion criteria. Animal studies revealed that diazepam and valproate gave limited protection against the onset of the high-pressure neurological syndrome. Lithium had a protective effect against nitrogen-narcosis and losartan reduced cardiac changes in repetitive diving. Human studies showed no beneficial or dangerous pressure-related interactions. In prevention of diving disorders, pseudoephedrine reduced otic barotrauma, vitamins C and E reduced endothelial dysfunction after bounce diving and hepatic oxidative stress in saturation diving.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Animal studies revealed that psycho-pharmaceuticals can limit the onset of neurologic symptoms and cardiovascular protective drugs might add a potential protective effect against decompression sickness. No evidence of significant risks due to changes in pharmacologic mechanisms were revealed and most medication is not a contraindication to diving. For improving decision making in prescribing medicine for recreational and occupational divers and to enhance safety by increasing our understanding of pharmacology in hyperbaric conditions, future research should focus on controlled human studies.
Topics: Animals; Decompression Sickness; Diving; Humans; Hyperbaric Oxygenation; Inert Gas Narcosis; Swimming
PubMed: 31177519
DOI: 10.28920/dhm49.2.127-136 -
BMJ Open Nov 2020To determine whether neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) can decrease the mortality of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and improve their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) can decrease the mortality of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and improve their clinical outcomes.
DESIGN
Systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov.
METHODS
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the treatment effect of NMBAs with that of placebo (or traditional treatment) in patients with ARDS were carefully selected. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were 21-28 days mortality, NMBA-related complications (barotrauma, pneumothorax and intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired muscle weakness), days free of ventilation and days not in the ICU by day 28, Medical Research Council score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score and arterial oxygen tension (PaO)/fractional inspired oxygen (FiO) (at 48 hours and 72 hours). Random-effects meta-regression was used to explore models involving potential moderators. Trial sequential analysis was performed to estimate the cumulative effect on mortality across RCTs.
RESULTS
NMBAs were not associated with reduced 90-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.85; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.09; p=0.20). However, they decreased the 21-28 days mortality (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96; p=0.02) and the rates of pneumothorax (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.77; p=0.003) and barotrauma (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.86; p=0.008). In addition, NMBAs increased PaO/FiO at 48 hours (mean difference (MD) 18.91; 95% CI 4.29 to 33.53; p=0.01) and 72 hours (MD 12.27; 95% CI 4.65 to 19.89; p=0.002). Meta-regression revealed an association between sample size (p=0.042) and short-term mortality. Publication year (p=0.050), sedation strategy (p=0.047) and sample size (p=0.046) were independently associated with PaO/FiO at 48 hours.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, the results suggested that use of NMBAs might reduce 21-28 days mortality, NMBA-related complications and oxygenation. However, NMBAs did not reduce the 90-day mortality of patients with ARDS, which contradicts a previous meta-analysis.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019139440.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Lung; Neuromuscular Blocking Agents; Prospective Studies; Respiratory Distress Syndrome
PubMed: 33444180
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037737 -
Diving and Hyperbaric Medicine Mar 2023Breath-hold (BH) diving has known risks, for example drowning, pulmonary oedema of immersion and barotrauma. There is also the risk of decompression illness (DCI) from... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Breath-hold (BH) diving has known risks, for example drowning, pulmonary oedema of immersion and barotrauma. There is also the risk of decompression illness (DCI) from decompression sickness (DCS) and/or arterial gas embolism (AGE). The first report on DCS in repetitive freediving was published in 1958 and from then there have been multiple case reports and a few studies but no prior systematic review or meta-analysis.
METHODS
We undertook a systematic literature review to identify articles available from PubMed and Google Scholar concerning breath-hold diving and DCI up to August 2021.
RESULTS
The present study identified 17 articles (14 case reports, three experimental studies) covering 44 incidences of DCI following BH diving.
CONCLUSIONS
This review found that the literature supports both DCS and AGE as potential mechanisms for DCI in BH divers; both should be considered a risk for this cohort of divers, just as for those breathing compressed gas while underwater.
Topics: Humans; Barotrauma; Decompression; Decompression Sickness; Diving; Embolism, Air
PubMed: 36966520
DOI: 10.28920/dhm53.1.31-41 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2015Acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) account for one-quarter of cases of acute respiratory failure in intensive care units (ICUs). A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) account for one-quarter of cases of acute respiratory failure in intensive care units (ICUs). A third to half of patients will die in the ICU, in hospital or during follow-up. Mechanical ventilation of people with ALI/ARDS allows time for the lungs to heal, but ventilation is invasive and can result in lung injury. It is uncertain whether ventilator-related injury would be reduced if pressure delivered by the ventilator with each breath is controlled, or whether the volume of air delivered by each breath is limited.
OBJECTIVES
To compare pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) versus volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) in adults with ALI/ARDS to determine whether PCV reduces in-hospital mortality and morbidity in intubated and ventilated adults.
SEARCH METHODS
In October 2014, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Isssue 9), MEDLINE (1950 to 1 October 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 1 October 2014), the Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1994 to 1 October 2014) and Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) at the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (1990 to 1 October 2014), as well as regional databases, clinical trials registries, conference proceedings and reference lists.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (irrespective of language or publication status) of adults with a diagnosis of acute respiratory failure or acute on chronic respiratory failure and fulfilling the criteria for ALI/ARDS as defined by the American-European Consensus Conference who were admitted to an ICU for invasive mechanical ventilation, comparing pressure-controlled or pressure-controlled inverse-ratio ventilation, or an equivalent pressure-controlled mode (PCV), versus volume-controlled ventilation, or an equivalent volume-controlled mode (VCV).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened and selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We sought clarification from trial authors when needed. We pooled risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model. We assessed overall evidence quality using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs that randomly assigned a total of 1089 participants recruited from 43 ICUs in Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Spain and the USA. Risk of bias of the included studies was low. Only data for mortality and barotrauma could be combined in the meta-analysis. We downgraded the quality of evidence for the three mortality outcomes on the basis of serious imprecision around the effect estimates. For mortality in hospital, the RR with PCV compared with VCV was 0.83 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.02; three trials, 1089 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and for mortality in the ICU, the RR with PCV compared with VCV was 0.84 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; two trials, 1062 participants; moderate-quality evidence). One study provided no evidence of clear benefit with the ventilatory mode for mortality at 28 days (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06; 983 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The difference in effect on barotrauma between PCV and VCV was uncertain as the result of imprecision and different co-interventions used in the studies (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.77; two trials, 1062 participants; low-quality evidence). Data from one trial with 983 participants for the mean duration of ventilation, and from another trial with 78 participants for the mean number of extrapulmonary organ failures that developed with PCV or VCV, were skewed. None of the trials reported on infection during ventilation or quality of life after discharge.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently available data from RCTs are insufficient to confirm or refute whether pressure-controlled or volume-controlled ventilation offers any advantage for people with acute respiratory failure due to acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome. More studies including a larger number of people given PCV and VCV may provide reliable evidence on which more firm conclusions can be based.
Topics: Acute Lung Injury; Critical Care; Female; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pressure; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; Respiratory Insufficiency; Selection Bias
PubMed: 25586462
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008807.pub2 -
PloS One 2022To report current evidence regarding the effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) on the impairments presented by children with cerebral palsy (CP), and its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To report current evidence regarding the effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) on the impairments presented by children with cerebral palsy (CP), and its safety.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PUBMED, The Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society database were searched by two reviewers. Methodological quality was graded independently by 2 reviewers using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database assessment scale for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the modified Downs and Black (m-DB) evaluation tool for non RCTs. A meta-analysis was performed where applicable for RCTs.
RESULTS
Five RCTs were identified. Four had a high level of evidence. Seven other studies were observational studies of low quality. All RCTs used 100% O2, 1.5 to 1.75 ATA, as the treatment intervention. Pressurized air was the control intervention in 3 RCTs, and physical therapy in 2. In all but one RCTs, similar improvements were observed regarding motor and/or cognitive functions, in the HBOT and control groups. Adverse events were mostly of mild severity, the most common being middle ear barotrauma (up to 50% of children).
CONCLUSION
There is high-level evidence that HBOT is ineffective in improving motor and cognitive functions, in children with CP. There is moderate-level evidence that HBOT is associated with a higher rate of adverse events than pressurized air in children.
Topics: Cerebral Palsy; Child; Humans; Hyperbaric Oxygenation
PubMed: 36240157
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276126 -
Vibration and bubbles: a systematic review of the effects of helicopter retrieval on injured divers.Diving and Hyperbaric Medicine Dec 2018Vibration from a helicopter during aeromedical retrieval of divers may increase venous gas emboli (VGE) production, evolution or distribution, potentially worsening the...
INTRODUCTION
Vibration from a helicopter during aeromedical retrieval of divers may increase venous gas emboli (VGE) production, evolution or distribution, potentially worsening the patient's condition.
AIM
To review the literature surrounding the helicopter transport of injured divers and establish if vibration contributes to increased VGE.
METHOD
A systematic literature search of key databases was conducted to identify articles investigating vibration and bubbles during helicopter retrieval of divers. Level of evidence was graded using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. A modified quality assessment tool for studies with diverse designs (QATSDD) was used to assess the overall quality of evidence.
RESULTS
Seven studies were included in the review. An in vitro research paper provided some evidence of bubble formation with gas supersaturation and vibration. Only one prospective intervention study was identified which examined the effect of vibration on VGE formation. Bubble duration was used to quantify VGE load with no difference found between the vibration and non-vibration time periods. This study was published in 1980 and technological advances since that time suggest cautious interpretation of the results. The remaining studies were retrospective chart reviews of helicopter retrieval of divers. Mode of transport, altitude exposure, oxygen and intravenous fluids use were examined.
CONCLUSION
There is some physical evidence that vibration leads to bubble formation although there is a paucity of research on the specific effects of helicopter vibration and VGE in divers. Technological advances have led to improved assessment of VGE in divers and will aid in further research.
Topics: Air Ambulances; Decompression Sickness; Diving; Embolism, Air; Humans; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Vibration
PubMed: 30517957
DOI: 10.28920/dhm48.4.241-251 -
Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory... 2019Setting a positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving mechanical ventilation has been an issue of great... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Effect of lung recruitment and titrated positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) low PEEP on patients with moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Setting a positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving mechanical ventilation has been an issue of great contention. Therefore, we aimed to determine effects of lung recruitment maneuver (RM) and titrated PEEP low PEEP on adult patients with moderate-severe ARDS.
METHODS
Data sources and study selection proceeded as follows: PubMed, Ovid, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from 2003 to May 2018. Original clinical randomized controlled trials which met the eligibility criteria were included. To compare the prognosis between the titrated PEEP and low PEEP groups on patients with moderate-severe ARDS (PaO/FiO < 200 mmHg). Heterogeneity was quantified through the statistic. Egger's test and funnel plots were used to assess publication bias.
RESULTS
No difference was found in 28-day mortality and ICU mortality (OR = 0.97, 95% CI (0.61-1.52), = 0.88; OR = 1.14, 95% CI (0.91-1.43), = 0.26, respectively). Only ventilator-free days, length of stay in the ICU, length of stay in hospital, and incidence of barotrauma could be systematically reviewed owing to bias and extensive heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION
No difference was observed in the RM between the titrated PEEP and the low PEEP in 28-day mortality and ICU mortality on patients with moderate-severe ARDS.
Topics: Adult; Hospitalization; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31269867
DOI: 10.1177/1753466619858228