-
Journal of Medical Internet Research Jun 2023Recent technological advances allow for the repeated sampling of real-time data in natural settings using electronic ecological momentary assessment (eEMA). These... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Recent technological advances allow for the repeated sampling of real-time data in natural settings using electronic ecological momentary assessment (eEMA). These advances are particularly meaningful for investigating physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep in young adults who are in a critical life stage for the development of healthy lifestyle behaviors.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to describe the use of eEMA methodologies in physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep research in young adults.
METHODS
The PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched through August 2022. Inclusion criteria were use of eEMA; sample of young adults aged 18 to 25 years; at least 1 measurement of physical activity, sedentary behavior, or sleep; English language; and a peer-reviewed report of original research. Study reports were excluded if they were abstracts, protocols, or reviews. The risk of bias assessment was conducted using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were conducted by independent authors, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis were used to identify overarching patterns within the following categories guided by the Checklist for Reporting Ecological Momentary Assessments Studies: study characteristics, outcomes and measures, eEMA procedures, and compliance.
RESULTS
The search resulted in 1221 citations with a final sample of 37 reports describing 35 unique studies. Most reports (28/37, 76%) were published in the last 5 years (2017-2022), used observational designs (35/37, 95%), consisted of samples of college students or apprentices (28/35, 80%), and were conducted in the United States (22/37, 60%). The sample sizes ranged from 14 to 1584 young adults. Physical activity was measured more frequently (28/37, 76%) than sleep (16/37, 43%) or sedentary behavior (4/37, 11%). Of the 37 studies, 11 (30%) reports included 2 movement behaviors and no reports included 3 movement behaviors. eEMA was frequently used to measure potential correlates of movement behaviors, such as emotional states or feelings (25/37, 68%), cognitive processes (7/37, 19%), and contextual factors (9/37, 24%). There was wide variability in the implementation and reporting of eEMA procedures, measures, missing data, analysis, and compliance.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of eEMA methodologies in physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep research in young adults has greatly increased in recent years; however, reports continue to lack standardized reporting of features unique to the eEMA methodology. Additional areas in need of future research include the use of eEMA with more diverse populations and the incorporation of all 3 movement behaviors within a 24-hour period. The findings are intended to assist investigators in the design, implementation, and reporting of physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep research using eEMA in young adults.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42021279156; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021279156.
Topics: Young Adult; Humans; Sedentary Behavior; Ecological Momentary Assessment; Cross-Sectional Studies; Electronics; Exercise
PubMed: 37384367
DOI: 10.2196/46783 -
Vaccines Aug 2022Solid organ rejection post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 infection is extremely rare but can occur. T-cell recognition of antigen is the primary and central event... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Solid organ rejection post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 infection is extremely rare but can occur. T-cell recognition of antigen is the primary and central event that leads to the cascade of events that result in rejection of a transplanted organ.
OBJECTIVES
To describe the results of a systematic review for solid organ rejections following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 infection.
METHODS
For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Proquest, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, Scopus and Nature through the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for studies on the incidence of solid organ rejection post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 infection, published from 1 December 2019 to 31 May 2022, with English language restriction.
RESULTS
One hundred thirty-six cases from fifty-two articles were included in the qualitative synthesis of this systematic review (56 solid organs rejected post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and 40 solid organs rejected following COVID-19 infection). Cornea rejection (44 cases) was the most frequent organ observed post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and following COVID-19 infection, followed by kidney rejection (36 cases), liver rejection (12 cases), lung rejection (2 cases), heart rejection (1 case) and pancreas rejection (1 case). The median or mean patient age ranged from 23 to 94 years across the studies. The majority of the patients were male ( = 51, 53.1%) and were of White (Caucasian) ( = 51, 53.7%) and Hispanic ( = 15, 15.8%) ethnicity. A total of fifty-six solid organ rejections were reported post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination [Pfizer-BioNTech ( = 31), Moderna ( = 14), Oxford Uni-AstraZeneca ( = 10) and Sinovac-CoronaVac ( = 1)]. The median time from SARS-CoV-2 vaccination to organ rejection was 13.5 h (IQR, 3.2-17.2), while the median time from COVID-19 infection to organ rejection was 14 h (IQR, 5-21). Most patients were easily treated without any serious complications, recovered and did not require long-term allograft rejection therapy [graft success ( = 70, 85.4%), graft failure ( = 12, 14.6%), survived ( = 90, 95.7%) and died ( = 4, 4.3%)].
CONCLUSION
The reported evidence of solid organ rejections post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COIVD-19 infection should not discourage vaccination against this worldwide pandemic. The number of reported cases is relatively small in relation to the hundreds of millions of vaccinations that have occurred, and the protective benefits offered by SARS-CoV-2 vaccination far outweigh the risks.
PubMed: 36016180
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10081289 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2016People with cystic fibrosis experience chronic airway infections as a result of mucus build up within the lungs. Repeated infections often cause lung damage and disease.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
People with cystic fibrosis experience chronic airway infections as a result of mucus build up within the lungs. Repeated infections often cause lung damage and disease. Airway clearance therapies aim to improve mucus clearance, increase sputum production, and improve airway function. The active cycle of breathing technique (also known as ACBT) is an airway clearance method that uses a cycle of techniques to loosen airway secretions including breathing control, thoracic expansion exercises, and the forced expiration technique. This is an update of a previously published review.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the clinical effectiveness of the active cycle of breathing technique with other airway clearance therapies in cystic fibrosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.Date of last search: 25 April 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled clinical studies, including cross-over studies, comparing the active cycle of breathing technique with other airway clearance therapies in cystic fibrosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened each article, abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each study.
MAIN RESULTS
Our search identified 62 studies, of which 19 (440 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Five randomised controlled studies (192 participants) were included in the meta-analysis; three were of cross-over design. The 14 remaining studies were cross-over studies with inadequate reports for complete assessment. The study size ranged from seven to 65 participants. The age of the participants ranged from six to 63 years (mean age 22.33 years). In 13 studies, follow up lasted a single day. However, there were two long-term randomised controlled studies with follow up of one to three years. Most of the studies did not report on key quality items, and therefore, have an unclear risk of bias in terms of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and outcome assessor blinding. Due to the nature of the intervention, none of the studies blinded participants or the personnel applying the interventions. However, most of the studies reported on all planned outcomes, had adequate follow up, assessed compliance, and used an intention-to-treat analysis.Included studies compared the active cycle of breathing technique with autogenic drainage, airway oscillating devices, high frequency chest compression devices, conventional chest physiotherapy, and positive expiratory pressure. Preference of technique varied: more participants preferred autogenic drainage over the active cycle of breathing technique; more preferred the active cycle of breathing technique over airway oscillating devices; and more were comfortable with the active cycle of breathing technique versus high frequency chest compression. No significant difference was seen in quality of life, sputum weight, exercise tolerance, lung function, or oxygen saturation between the active cycle of breathing technique and autogenic drainage or between the active cycle of breathing technique and airway oscillating devices. There was no significant difference in lung function and the number of pulmonary exacerbations between the active cycle of breathing technique alone or in conjunction with conventional chest physiotherapy. All other outcomes were either not measured or had insufficient data for analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to support or reject the use of the active cycle of breathing technique over any other airway clearance therapy. Five studies, with data from eight different comparators, found that the active cycle of breathing technique was comparable with other therapies in outcomes such as participant preference, quality of life, exercise tolerance, lung function, sputum weight, oxygen saturation, and number of pulmonary exacerbations. Longer-term studies are needed to more adequately assess the effects of the active cycle of breathing technique on outcomes important for people with cystic fibrosis such as quality of life and preference.
Topics: Chest Wall Oscillation; Cystic Fibrosis; Drainage, Postural; High-Frequency Ventilation; Humans; Patient Preference; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Therapy
PubMed: 27378490
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007862.pub4 -
PloS One 2016There is uncertainty about the contribution that social support interventions (SSI) can have in mitigating the personal, social and economic costs of tuberculosis (TB)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The Effects of Psycho-Emotional and Socio-Economic Support for Tuberculosis Patients on Treatment Adherence and Treatment Outcomes - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
There is uncertainty about the contribution that social support interventions (SSI) can have in mitigating the personal, social and economic costs of tuberculosis (TB) treatment on patients, and improving treatment outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To identify psycho-emotional (PE) and socio-economic (SE) interventions provided to TB patients and to assess the effects of these interventions on treatment adherence and treatment outcomes.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched PubMed and Embase from 1 January 1990-15 March 2015 and abstracts of the Union World Conference on Lung Health from 2010-2014 for studies reporting TB treatment adherence and treatment outcomes following SSI.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies measuring the effects of PE or SE interventions on TB treatment adherence, treatment outcomes, and/or financial burden.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts for inclusion of articles. One reviewer reviewed full text articles and the reference list of selected studies. A second reviewer double checked all extracted information against the articles.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-five studies were included in the qualitative analysis; of which eighteen were included in the meta-analysis. Effects were pooled from 11 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), including 9,655 participants with active TB. Meta-analysis showed that PE support (RR 1.37; CI 1.08-1.73), SE support (RR 1.08; CI 1.03-1.13) and combined PE and SE support (RR 1.17; CI 1.12-1.22) were associated with a significant improvement of successful treatment outcomes. Also PE support, SE support and a combination of these types of support were associated with reductions in unsuccessful treatment outcomes (PE: RR 0.46; CI 0.22-0.96, SE: RR 0.78; CI 0.69-0.88 and Combined PE and SE: RR 0.42; CI 0.23-0.75). Evidence on the effect of PE and SE interventions on treatment adherence were not meta-analysed because the interventions were too heterogeneous to pool. No evidence was found to show whether SE reduced the financial burden for TB patients.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Our review and meta-analysis concluded that PE and SE interventions are associated with beneficial effects on TB treatment outcomes. However, the quality of evidence is very low and future well-designed evaluation studies are needed.
Topics: Emotions; Humans; Patient Compliance; Self-Help Groups; Social Support; Treatment Outcome; Tuberculosis
PubMed: 27123848
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154095 -
The European Respiratory Journal Apr 2016The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the impact of pharmacists' interventions on clinical asthma outcomes on adult patients and to identify the... (Review)
Review
The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the impact of pharmacists' interventions on clinical asthma outcomes on adult patients and to identify the outcome indicators used.PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Scielo were searched. Studies addressing pharmacists' interventions on adult asthma patients reporting clinical asthma outcomes were incorporated.11 clinical outcomes were identified in 21 studies. 10 studies measured the impact of the intervention on asthma control. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) and non-RCTs found positive results in percentages of controlled patients and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) scores. Discordant results were found for Asthma Control Test results. Asthma severity was assessed in four studies. One RCT found a significant decrease in the percentage of severe patients; two non-RCTs found significant improvements in severity scores. 11 studies reported pulmonary function indicators, showing inconsistent results. Eight studies measured asthma symptoms; three RCTs and four non-RCTs showed significant improvements.RCTs and non-RCTs generated similar results for most outcomes. Based on the evidence generated by RCTs, pharmacists' have a positive impact on the percentage of controlled patients, ACQ scores, severity and symptoms. Future research should report using the core outcome set of indicators established for asthma (PROSPERO CRD42014007019).
Topics: Adult; Asthma; Databases, Factual; Humans; Medication Adherence; Pharmacists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Function Tests; Surveys and Questionnaires; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26677937
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01497-2015 -
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and... Apr 2024There is no consensus on the optimal endpoint(s) in cancer cachexia trials. Endpoint variation is an obstacle when comparing interventions and their clinical value. The... (Review)
Review
There is no consensus on the optimal endpoint(s) in cancer cachexia trials. Endpoint variation is an obstacle when comparing interventions and their clinical value. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize and evaluate endpoints used to assess appetite and dietary intake in cancer cachexia clinical trials. A search for studies published from 1 January 1990 until 2 June 2021 was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies examined cancer cachexia treatment versus a comparator in adults with assessments of appetite and/or dietary intake as study endpoints, a sample size ≥40 and an intervention lasting ≥14 days. Reporting was in line with PRISMA guidance, and a protocol was published in PROSPERO (2022 CRD42022276710). This review is part of a series of systematic reviews examining cachexia endpoints. Of the 5975 articles identified, 116 were eligible for the wider review series and 80 specifically examined endpoints of appetite (65 studies) and/or dietary intake (21 studies). Six trials assessed both appetite and dietary intake. Appetite was the primary outcome in 15 trials and dietary intake in 7 trials. Median sample size was 101 patients (range 40-628). Forty-nine studies included multiple primary tumour sites, while 31 studies involved single primary tumour sites (15 gastrointestinal, 7 lung, 7 head and neck and 2 female reproductive organs). The most frequently reported appetite endpoints were visual analogue scale (VAS) and numerical rating scale (NRS) (40%). The appetite item from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ) C30/C15 PAL (38%) and the appetite question from North Central Cancer Treatment Group anorexia questionnaire (17%) were also frequently applied. Of the studies that assessed dietary intake, 13 (62%) used food records (prospective registrations) and 10 (48%) used retrospective methods (24-h recall or dietary history). For VAS/NRS, a mean change of 1.3 corresponded to Hedge's g of 0.5 and can be considered a moderate change. For food records, a mean change of 231 kcal/day or 11 g of protein/day corresponded to a moderate change. Choice of endpoint in cachexia trials will depend on factors pertinent to the trial to be conducted. Nevertheless, from trials assessed and available literature, NRS or EORTC QLQ C30/C15 PAL seems suitable for appetite assessments. Appetite and dietary intake endpoints are rarely used as primary outcomes in cancer cachexia. Dietary intake assessments were used mainly to monitor compliance and are not validated in cachexia populations. Given the importance to cachexia studies, dietary intake endpoints must be validated before they are used as endpoints in clinical trials.
Topics: Humans; Appetite; Cachexia; Eating; Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Retrospective Studies; Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38343065
DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.13434 -
The Journal of Thoracic and... Oct 2020It is unclear how positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers impact patients during one-lung ventilation (OLV). We conducted a systematic review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It is unclear how positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers impact patients during one-lung ventilation (OLV). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of lung recruitment and PEEP on ventilation and oxygenation during OLV.
METHODS
A systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis were performed. Mean difference with standard deviation was calculated. Included studies were evaluated for quality and risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Score where appropriate.
RESULTS
In total, 926 articles were identified, of which 16 were included in meta-analysis. Recruitment maneuvers increased arterial oxygen tension (PaO) by 82 mm Hg [20, 144 mm Hg] and reduced dead-space by 5.9% [3.8, 8.0%]. PEEP increased PaO by 30.3 mm Hg [11.9, 48.6 mm Hg]. Subgroup analysis showed a significant increase in PaO (P = .0003; +35.4 mm Hg [16.2, 54.5 mm Hg]) with PEEP compared with no PEEP but no such difference in comparisons with PEEP-treated controls. No significant difference in PaO was observed between "high" and "low" PEEP-treated subgroups (P = .29). No significant improvement in PaO was observed for subgroups coadministered PEEP, lung recruitment, and low tidal volumes. PEEP was associated with a modest but statistically significant increase in compliance (P = .03; 4.33 mL/cmHO [0.33, 8.32]). High risk of bias was identified in the majority of studies. Considerable heterogeneity was observed.
CONCLUSIONS
Recruitment maneuvers and PEEP have physiologic advantages during OLV. The optimal use of PEEP is yet to be determined. The evidence is limited by heavy use of surrogate outcomes. Future studies with clinical outcomes are necessary to determine the impact of recruitment maneuvers and PEEP during OLV.
Topics: Humans; Lung; One-Lung Ventilation; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Risk Factors; Thoracic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome; Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury
PubMed: 32276803
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.02.077 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Nov 2022Individualised positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) may optimise pulmonary compliance, thereby potentially mitigating lung injury. This meta-analysis aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Individualised positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) may optimise pulmonary compliance, thereby potentially mitigating lung injury. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the impact of individualised PEEP vs fixed PEEP during abdominal surgery on postoperative pulmonary outcomes.
METHODS
Medical databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure) were searched for RCTs comparing fixed vs individualised PEEP. The composite primary outcome of pulmonary complications comprised hypoxaemia, atelectasis, pneumonia, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Secondary outcomes included oxygenation (PO/FiO) and systemic inflammatory markers (interleukin-6 [IL-6] and club cell protein-16 [CC16]). We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was applied.
RESULTS
Ten RCTs (n=1117 patients) met the criteria for inclusion, with six reporting the primary endpoint. Individualised PEEP reduced the incidence of overall pulmonary complications (141/412 [34.2%]) compared with 183/415 (44.1%) receiving fixed PEEP (RR 0.69 [95% CI: 0.51-0.93]; P=0.016; I=43%). Risk-of-bias analysis did not alter these findings. Individualised PEEP reduced postoperative hypoxaemia (74/392 [18.9%]) compared with 110/395 (27.8%) participants receiving fixed PEEP (RR 0.68 [0.52-0.88]; P=0.003; I=0%) but not postoperative atelectasis (RR 0.93 [0.81-1.07]; P=0.297; I=0%). Individualised PEEP resulted in higher PO/FiO (MD 20.8 mm Hg [4.6-36.9]; P=0.012; I=80%) and reduced systemic inflammation (lower plasma IL-6 [MD -6.8 pg ml; -11.9 to -1.7]; P=0.009; I=6%; and CC16 levels [MD -6.2 ng ml; -8.8 to -3.5]; P<0.001; I=0%) at the end of surgery.
CONCLUSIONS
Individualised PEEP may reduce pulmonary complications, improve oxygenation, and reduce systemic inflammation after abdominal surgery.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
CRD42021277973.
Topics: Humans; Interleukin-6; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Pulmonary Atelectasis; Hypoxia; Inflammation
PubMed: 36031417
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.07.009 -
Journal of Anesthesia Apr 2022Low tidal volume ventilation strategy may lead to atelectasis without proper positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuver (RM) settings. RM followed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effects of individualized positive end-expiratory pressure combined with recruitment maneuver on intraoperative ventilation during abdominal surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Low tidal volume ventilation strategy may lead to atelectasis without proper positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuver (RM) settings. RM followed by individualized PEEP was a new method to optimize the intraoperative pulmonary function. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to compare the effects of individualized PEEP + RM on intraoperative pulmonary function and hemodynamic with other PEEP and RM settings. The primary outcomes were intraoperative oxygenation index and dynamic compliance, while the secondary outcomes were intraoperative heart rate and mean arterial pressure. In total, we identified 15 clinical trials containing 36 randomized groups with 3634 participants. Ventilation strategies were divided into eight groups by four PEEP (L: low, M: moderate, H: high, and I: individualized) and two RM (yes or no) settings. The main results showed that IPEEP + RM group was superior to all other groups regarding to both oxygenation index and dynamic compliance. LPEEP group was inferior to LPEEP + RM, MPEEP, MPEEP + RM, and IPEEP + RM in terms of oxygenation index and LPEEP + RM, MPEEP, MPEEP + RM, HPEEP + RM, IPEEP, and IPEEP + RM in terms of dynamic compliance. All comparisons were similar for secondary outcomes. Our analysis suggested that individualized PEEP and RM may be the optimal low tidal volume ventilation strategy at present, while low PEEP without RM is not suggested.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Pulmonary Atelectasis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tidal Volume
PubMed: 34757497
DOI: 10.1007/s00540-021-03012-9 -
Annals of Translational Medicine Jan 2018It is well-known that positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) can prevent ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) and improve pulmonary physiology in animals with injured... (Review)
Review
It is well-known that positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) can prevent ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) and improve pulmonary physiology in animals with injured lungs. It's uncertain whether PEEP has similar effects in animals with uninjured lungs. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different PEEP levels in animals with uninjured lungs was performed. Trials in animals with injured lungs were excluded, as were trials that compared ventilation strategies that also differed with respect to other ventilation settings, e.g., tidal volume size. The search identified ten eligible trials in 284 animals, including rodents and small as well as large mammals. Duration of ventilation was highly variable, from 1 to 6 hours and tidal volume size varied from 7 to 60 mL/kg. PEEP ranged from 3 to 20 cmHO, and from 0 to 5 cmHO, in the 'high PEEP' or 'PEEP' arms, and in the 'low PEEP' or 'no PEEP' arms, respectively. Definitions used for lung injury were quite diverse, as were other outcome measures. The effects of PEEP, at any level, on lung injury was not straightforward, with some trials showing less injury with 'high PEEP' or 'PEEP' and other trials showing no benefit. In most trials, 'high PEEP' or 'PEEP' was associated with improved respiratory system compliance, and better oxygen parameters. However, 'high PEEP' or 'PEEP' was also associated with occurrence of hypotension, a reduction in cardiac output, or development of hyperlactatemia. There were no differences in mortality. The number of trials comparing 'high PEEP' or 'PEEP' with 'low PEEP' or 'no PEEP' in animals with uninjured lungs is limited, and results are difficult to compare. Based on findings of this systematic review it's uncertain whether PEEP, at any level, truly prevents lung injury, while most trials suggest potential harmful effects on the systemic circulation.
PubMed: 29430442
DOI: 10.21037/atm.2017.12.05