-
Korean Journal of Ophthalmology : KJO Apr 2022Central retinal artery occlusion (CRAO) is a vision-threatening condition with a potentially poor visual prognosis. Many different treatment modalities are suggested but... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Central retinal artery occlusion (CRAO) is a vision-threatening condition with a potentially poor visual prognosis. Many different treatment modalities are suggested but controversy remains regarding effectiveness of these treatments. The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis in addition to analyzing retrospective data at our own tertiary care center regarding effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in treatment of CRAO.
METHODS
The PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library are searched from the date of database inception to September 2021 to conduct a review based on the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis), evaluating the role of HBOT in visual recovery of CRAO patients. In addition, a retrospective chart review of patients clinically diagnosed with CRAO at our university-based hospital (University of Texas Health, San Antonio, TX, USA) from year 2011 to 2021 was conducted.
RESULTS
After a review of 376 articles, three articles met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis, where a total of 207 patients received HBOT versus 89 patients that did not receive any form of oxygen therapy. Analysis of these results demonstrate that HBOT in CRAO patients does not enhance the final visual outcome (p = 0.83). Similar conclusion was also drawn from retrospective analysis of 48 patients (15 HBOT versus 33 controls) at our tertiary care center, where no visual benefit was observed in the HBOT group.
CONCLUSIONS
HBOT does not appear to improve final visual outcome and concerns remain regarding adverse reactions such as barotrauma and generalized seizures. Large, randomized studies are required for further understanding of the role of HBOT in treatment of CRAO.
Topics: Humans; Hyperbaric Oxygenation; Retinal Artery Occlusion; Retrospective Studies; Vision Disorders
PubMed: 34743490
DOI: 10.3341/kjo.2021.0130 -
JAMA Network Open Jul 2019A number of interventions are available to manage patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, the associations of currently... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Assessment of Therapeutic Interventions and Lung Protective Ventilation in Patients With Moderate to Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
IMPORTANCE
A number of interventions are available to manage patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, the associations of currently available ventilatory strategies and adjunctive therapies with mortality are uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To compare and rank different therapeutic strategies to identify the best intervention associated with a reduction in mortality in adult patients with moderate to severe ARDS.
DATA SOURCES
An electronic search of MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process/ePubs Ahead of Print, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial Register (Central), PubMed, and CINAHL was conducted, from database inception to May 29, 2019.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials of interventions for adults with moderate to severe ARDS that used lung protective ventilation. No language restrictions were applied.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data were independently extracted by 2 reviewers and synthesized with Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Barotrauma was a secondary outcome.
RESULTS
Among 25 randomized clinical trials evaluating 9 interventions, 2686 of 7743 patients (34.6%) died within 28 days. Compared with lung protective ventilation alone, prone positioning and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were associated with significantly lower 28-day mortality (prone positioning: risk ratio, 0.69; 95% credible interval, 0.48-0.99; low quality of evidence; venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: risk ratio, 0.60; 95% credible interval, 0.38-0.93; moderate quality of evidence). These 2 interventions had the highest ranking probabilities, although they were not significantly different from each other. Among 18 trials reporting on barotrauma, 448 of 6258 patients (7.2%) experienced this secondary outcome. No intervention was superior to any other in reducing barotrauma, and each represented low to very low quality of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This network meta-analysis supports the use of prone positioning and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in addition to lung protective ventilation in patients with ARDS. Moreover, venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may be considered as an early strategy for adults with severe ARDS receiving lung protective ventilation.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Bayes Theorem; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Patient Positioning; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Distress Syndrome
PubMed: 31365111
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.8116 -
Heart & Lung : the Journal of Critical... 2021Pneumothorax has been frequently described as a complication of COVID-19 infections.
BACKGROUND
Pneumothorax has been frequently described as a complication of COVID-19 infections.
OBJECTIVE
In this systematic review, we describe the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of COVID-19-related pneumothorax.
METHODS
Studies were identified through MEDLINE, Pubmed, and Google Scholar databases using keywords of "COVID-19," "SARS-CoV-2," "pneumothorax," "pneumomediastinum," and "barotrauma" from January 1st, 2020 to January 30th, 2021.
RESULTS
Among the nine observational studies, the incidence of pneumothorax is low at 0.3% in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, the incidence of pneumothorax increases to 12.8-23.8% in those requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) with a high mortality rate up to 100%. COVID-19-related pneumothorax tends to be unilateral and right-sided. Age, pre-existing lung diseases, and active smoking status are not shown to be risk factors. The time to pneumothorax diagnosis is around 9.0-19.6 days from admission and 5.4 days after IMV initiation. COVID-19-related pneumothoraces are associated with prolonged hospitalization, increased likelihood of ICU admission and death, especially among the elderly.
CONCLUSION
COVID-19-related pneumothorax likely signify greater disease severity. With the high variability of COVID-19-related pneumothorax incidence described, a well-designed study is required to better assess the significance of COVID-19-related pneumothorax.
Topics: Aged; COVID-19; Humans; Incidence; Mediastinal Emphysema; Pneumothorax; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34087677
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2021.04.005 -
Annals of Intensive Care Apr 2019Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) has been considered a tempting mode of ventilation during acute respiratory failure within the concept of open lung...
BACKGROUND
Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) has been considered a tempting mode of ventilation during acute respiratory failure within the concept of open lung ventilation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to verify whether adult patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure have a higher number of ventilator-free days at day 28 when ventilated in APRV compared to conventional ventilation strategy. Secondary outcomes were difference in PaO/FiO at day 3, ICU length of stay (LOS), ICU and hospital mortality, mean arterial pressure (MAP), risk of barotrauma and level of sedation. We searched MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database until December 2018.
RESULTS
We considered five RCTs for the analysis enrolling a total of 330 patients. For ventilatory-free day at day 28, the overall mean difference (MD) between APRV and conventional ventilation was 6.04 days (95%CI 2.12, 9.96, p = 0.003; I = 65%, p = 0.02). Patients treated with APRV had a lower ICU LOS than patients treated with conventional ventilation (MD 3.94 days [95%CI 1.44, 6.45, p = 0.002; I = 37%, p = 0.19]) and a lower hospital mortality (RD 0.16 [95%CI 0.02, 0.29, p = 0.03; I = 0, p = 0.5]). PaO/FiO at day 3 was not different between the two groups (MD 40.48 mmHg [95%CI - 25.78, 106.73, p = 0.23; I = 92%, p < 0.001]). MAP was significantly higher during APRV (MD 5 mmHg [95%CI 1.43, 8.58, p = 0.006; I = 0%, p = 0.92]). Then, there was no difference regarding the onset of pneumothorax under the two ventilation strategies (RR 1.94 [95%CI 0.54, 6.94, p = 0.31; I = 0%, p = 0.74]). ICU mortality and sedation level were not included into quantitative analysis.
CONCLUSION
This study showed a higher number of ventilator-free days at 28 day and a lower hospital mortality in acute hypoxemic patients treated with APRV than conventional ventilation, without any negative hemodynamic impact or higher risk of barotrauma. However, these results need to be interpreted with caution because of the low-quality evidence supporting them and the moderate heterogeneity found. Other well-designed RCTs need to be conducted to confirm our findings.
PubMed: 30949778
DOI: 10.1186/s13613-019-0518-7 -
Critical Care Medicine Mar 2022There are concerns of a high barotrauma rate in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
There are concerns of a high barotrauma rate in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. However, a few studies were published, and reported rates were highly variable. We performed a systematic literature review to identify rates of barotrauma, pneumothorax, and pneumomediastinum in coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.
DATA SOURCE
PubMed and Scopus were searched for studies reporting barotrauma event rate in adult coronavirus disease 2019 patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.
STUDY SELECTION
We included all studies investigating adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring mechanical ventilation. Case reports, studies performed outside ICU setting, and pediatric studies were excluded. Two investigators independently screened and selected studies for inclusion.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two investigators abstracted data on study characteristics, rate of pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum and overall barotrauma events, and mortality. When available, data from noncoronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients were also collected. Pooled estimates for barotrauma, pneumothorax, and pneumomediastinum were calculated.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of 13 studies with 1,814 invasively ventilated coronavirus disease 2019 patients and 493 noncoronavirus disease 2019 patients were included. A total of 266/1,814 patients (14.7%) had at least one barotrauma event (pooled estimates, 16.1% [95% CI, 11.8-20.4%]). Pneumothorax occurred in 132/1,435 patients (pooled estimates, 10.7%; 95% CI, 6.7-14.7%), whereas pneumomediastinum occurred in 162/1,432 patients (pooled estimates, 11.2%; 95% CI, 8.0-14.3%). Mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 patients who developed barotrauma was 111/198 patients (pooled estimates, 61.6%; 95% CI, 50.2-73.0%). In noncoronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients, barotrauma occurred in 31/493 patients (6.3%; pooled estimates, 5.7%; 95% CI, -2.1% to 13.5%).
CONCLUSIONS
Barotrauma occurs in one out of six coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and is associated with a mortality rate of about 60%. Barotrauma rate may be higher than noncoronavirus disease 2019 controls.
Topics: Barotrauma; COVID-19; Humans; Mediastinal Emphysema; Pneumothorax; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34637421
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005283 -
BMC Anesthesiology Nov 2018Mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains high. These patients require mechanical ventilation strategies that include high positive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains high. These patients require mechanical ventilation strategies that include high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). It remains controversial whether high PEEP can improve outcomes for ARDS patients, especially patients who show improvement in oxygenation in response to PEEP. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the effects of high PEEP on ARDS patients.
METHODS
We electronically searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science databases from January 1990 to December 2017. Meta-analyses of the effects of PEEP on survival in adults with ARDS were conducted using the methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration.
RESULTS
A total of 3612 patients from nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. There were 1794 and 1818 patients in the high and low PEEP groups, respectively. Hospital mortality showed no significant difference between the high and low PEEP groups (RR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.07; P = 0.26). Similar results were found for 28-d mortality (RR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.07; P = 0.19) and ICU mortality (RR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.07; P = 0.15). The risk of clinically objectified barotrauma was not significantly different between the high and low PEEP groups (RR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.74 to 2.09, P = 0.41). In the subgroup of ARDS patients who responded to increased PEEP by improved oxygenation (from 6 RCTs), high PEEP significantly reduced hospital mortality (RR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; P = 0.03), ICU mortality (RR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.98; P = 0.04),but the 28-d mortality was not decreased(RR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.01; P = 0.07). For ARDS patients in the low PEEP group who received a PEEP level lower than 10 cmHO (from 6 RCTs), ICU mortality was lower in the high PEEP group than the low PEEP group (RR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.94; P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
For ARDS patients who responded to increased PEEP by improved oxygenation, high PEEP could reduce hospital mortality, ICU mortality and 28-d mortality. High PEEP does not increase the risk of clinically objectified barotrauma.
Topics: Humans; Oxygen Consumption; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30447683
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-018-0631-4 -
Journal of Critical Care Feb 2022To evaluate the effects of high and low levels of PEEP on ICU patients without ARDS. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To evaluate the effects of high and low levels of PEEP on ICU patients without ARDS.
METHODS
We searched public databases (including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrial.gov). The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies.
RESULTS
We included 2307 patients from 24 trials. Although no significant difference was found between high and low PEEP applications in in-hospital mortality (risk ratio[RR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval[CI] [0.81, 1.19], P = 0.87), high PEEP indeed decreased the incidence of ARDS, hypoxemia, and increased the level of PaO/FIO. In addition, although the overall results did not reveal any advantages of high PEEP in terms of secondary outcomes regarding 28-day mortality, the duration of ventilation, atelectasis, pulmonary barotrauma, hypotension, and so forth, the subgroup analysis concerning the level of low PEEP (ZEEP or not) and patient type (postoperative or medical ones) yielded different results. The TSA results suggested that more RCTs are needed.
CONCLUSIONS
Although ventilation with high PEEP in ICU patients without ARDS may not reduce in-hospital mortality, the decreased incidences of ARDS and hypoxemia and the improvement in PaO/FIO were found in the high PEEP arm.
Topics: Hospital Mortality; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Distress Syndrome
PubMed: 34689064
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2021.09.026 -
Tuberkuloz Ve Toraks Jun 2022The first application of modern non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) can be traced back to over 30 years ago when a patient suffering from Duchenne Muscular...
The first application of modern non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) can be traced back to over 30 years ago when a patient suffering from Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy was successfully ventilated. Since then, the use of NIV has been on the rise throughout the world. Although a very modern and safe therapy, complications during its application are inevitable. In addition to some well-known complications, others have described more rare entities. In this article, we described such rare complications as pneumoperitoneum, pneumocephalus, parotitis, gastric perforation, and barotrauma. The purpose of this review was to describe unusual complications of NIV, their prevalence, and the mechanisms by which such complications arise. We performed a clinical review by searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries with Mesh terms: 'non-invasive mechanical ventilation', 'high-flow nasal cannula', 'rare complication', 'unusual complication', and 'unexpected complication'. These terms were cross-referenced with other keywords: 'pneumoperitoneum', 'parotitis', 'pneumocephalus', 'gastric insufflation', and 'barotrauma'. We included 26 research papers. When applying mechanical ventilation, it is necessary to have a strong knowledge of the mechanics of the device as well as familiarity with the complications that may occur during its use, including less common ones. Prompt and effective treatment of such complications is required, as well as careful consideration of the potential causes of such events, during the application of NIV or HFNC.
Topics: Cannula; Humans; Noninvasive Ventilation; Oxygen Inhalation Therapy; Respiration, Artificial; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35785884
DOI: 10.5578/tt.20229810 -
Journal of Intensive Care 2020Neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) has been proposed by medical guidelines for early severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) because of its survival benefits....
BACKGROUND
Neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) has been proposed by medical guidelines for early severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) because of its survival benefits. However, new studies have provided evidence contradicting these results.
METHOD
A search was performed of the Pubmed, Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Virtual Health Library databases for randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating 28-day mortality in ARDS patients treated with NMBA within 48 h. An English language restriction was applied. Relevant data were extracted and pooled into risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD), and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effect model. Sensitivity and meta-regression analysis were performed.
RESULTS
From 2675 studies, we included five RCTs in the analysis, for a total of 1461 patients with a mean PaO/FIO of 104 ± 35 mmHg. The cisatracurium group had the same risk of death at 28 days (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.78-1.03; = 50%, = 0.12) and 90 days (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.62-1.06; = 56%, = 0.06) as the control group (no cisatracurium). The secondary outcomes of mechanical ventilation duration and ventilator-free days were not different between the two groups. Cisatracurium had a significantly lower risk of barotrauma than the control group with no difference in intensive care unit (ICU)-induced weakness. The PaO/FIO ratio was higher in the cisatracurium group but not until 48 h. Meta-regression analysis of the baseline PaO/FIO ratio, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) revealed no heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis excluding the trial using high PEEP and light sedation strategy yielded an improvement in all mortality outcomes.
CONCLUSION
NMBA improves oxygenation only after 48 h in moderate, severe ARDS patients and has a lower barotrauma risk without affecting ICU weakness. However, NMBA does not reduce ventilator-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation or, most importantly, the mortality risk regardless of the severity of ARDS.
PubMed: 32015880
DOI: 10.1186/s40560-020-0431-z -
Diving and Hyperbaric Medicine Sep 2018To systematically search the literature for studies evaluating the typical presentation and testing that is performed for divers with inner ear symptoms and then to...
OBJECTIVE
To systematically search the literature for studies evaluating the typical presentation and testing that is performed for divers with inner ear symptoms and then to create a tool for clinicians when evaluating a diver with inner ear symptoms.
METHODS
Nine databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE were systematically searched through 31 January 2018. The PRISMA statement was followed.
RESULTS
Three-hundred and two manuscripts were screened, 69 were downloaded and 21 met criteria to be included in this review. The articles were evaluated for symptomatic trends and initial evaluation work-up primarily focusing on inner-ear barotrauma (IEBt) and inner ear decompression sickness (inner ear DCS). The trends for IEBt were compared to typical inner ear DCS presentation based on large study inner ear DCS results consistent with the plethora of research available. Finally, the HOOYAH Tool was developed to assist the receiving provider to better determine the most likely diagnosis and thus initiate appropriate treatment. The HOOYAH Tool is comprised of the following: 1) H: hard to clear; 2) O: onset of symptoms; 3) O: otoscopic exam; 4) Y: your dive profile; 5) A: additional symptoms and 6) H: hearing. For each of these components, the typical presentation is described allowing the provider better to discern the correct diagnosis.
CONCLUSION
The diagnosis of IEBt remains difficult to define short of visualization through surgical exploration. Early treatment is defined by conservative management with a subsequent observational period to determine symptomatic resolution and need for surgery. However, a similar differential diagnosis is inner ear DCS which requires early recompression. The HOOYAH tool provides a method for assisting the provider in forming a more confident decision regarding the underlying pathology and facilitation of the appropriate treatment.
Topics: Barotrauma; Decompression Sickness; Diving; Ear, Inner; Ear, Middle; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans
PubMed: 30199891
DOI: 10.28920/dhm48.3.186-193