-
European Archives of... Dec 2021The aim of this study is to provide a systematic review of the literature about the etiology, clinical and radiological presentation, surgical management, and outcomes... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this study is to provide a systematic review of the literature about the etiology, clinical and radiological presentation, surgical management, and outcomes of pneumolabyrinth (PNL).
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed including studies published up to September 2020 in electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus). The PRISMA standard was applied to identify English, Italian, or French-language studies mentioning PNL. Full texts lacking information on the etiology were excluded. Data concerning the cause, site of air bubbles/fistula, clinical presentation, treatment, and outcome were collected. A qualitative synthesis of the results was performed.
RESULTS
Seventy-eight articles were eventually included; 132 patients were involved in the qualitative synthesis. The most common causes were: stapes surgery (24/132, 18.2%), temporal bone fracture (42/132, 31.8%), head trauma without temporal bone fracture (19/132, 14.4%), penetrating trauma (21/132, 15.9%), and barotrauma (15/132, 11.4%). The site most commonly involved was the vestibule (102/107, 95.3%), followed by cochlea (43/107, 40.2%) and semicircular canals (25/107, 23.4%).
CONCLUSION
The etiopathogenesis of PNL can be summarized in traumatic, iatrogenic, or inflammatory/infective. Its management consists in exploratory tympanotomy and sealing the fistula, but also conservative treatments can be attempted. Vestibular symptoms disappear in the majority of cases. Instead, the prognosis of hearing function is widely variable, and complete recovery is less probable. The certainty of evidence is still too low to make it useful for clinical decision-making.
Topics: Cochlea; Craniocerebral Trauma; Humans; Semicircular Canals; Stapes Surgery; Vestibule, Labyrinth
PubMed: 33881577
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-021-06827-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021High-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) deliver high flows of blended humidified air and oxygen via wide-bore nasal cannulae and may be useful in providing respiratory support... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
High-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) deliver high flows of blended humidified air and oxygen via wide-bore nasal cannulae and may be useful in providing respiratory support for adults experiencing acute respiratory failure, or at risk of acute respiratory failure, in the intensive care unit (ICU). This is an update of an earlier version of the review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of HFNC compared to standard oxygen therapy, or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), for respiratory support in adults in the ICU.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Register (17 April 2020), clinical trial registers (6 April 2020) and conducted forward and backward citation searches.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled studies (RCTs) with a parallel-group or cross-over design comparing HFNC use versus other types of non-invasive respiratory support (standard oxygen therapy via nasal cannulae or mask; or NIV or NIPPV which included continuous positive airway pressure and bilevel positive airway pressure) in adults admitted to the ICU.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 31 studies (22 parallel-group and nine cross-over designs) with 5136 participants; this update included 20 new studies. Twenty-one studies compared HFNC with standard oxygen therapy, and 13 compared HFNC with NIV or NIPPV; three studies included both comparisons. We found 51 ongoing studies (estimated 12,807 participants), and 19 studies awaiting classification for which we could not ascertain study eligibility information. In 18 studies, treatment was initiated after extubation. In the remaining studies, participants were not previously mechanically ventilated. HFNC versus standard oxygen therapy HFNC may lead to less treatment failure as indicated by escalation to alternative types of oxygen therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.86; 15 studies, 3044 participants; low-certainty evidence). HFNC probably makes little or no difference in mortality when compared with standard oxygen therapy (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11; 11 studies, 2673 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). HFNC probably results in little or no difference to cases of pneumonia (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.09; 4 studies, 1057 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and we were uncertain of its effect on nasal mucosa or skin trauma (RR 3.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 31.48; 2 studies, 617 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found low-certainty evidence that HFNC may make little or no difference to the length of ICU stay according to the type of respiratory support used (MD 0.12 days, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.27; 7 studies, 1014 participants). We are uncertain whether HFNC made any difference to the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO/FiO) within 24 hours of treatment (MD 10.34 mmHg, 95% CI -17.31 to 38; 5 studies, 600 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether HFNC made any difference to short-term comfort (MD 0.31, 95% CI -0.60 to 1.22; 4 studies, 662 participants, very low-certainty evidence), or to long-term comfort (MD 0.59, 95% CI -2.29 to 3.47; 2 studies, 445 participants, very low-certainty evidence). HFNC versus NIV or NIPPV We found no evidence of a difference between groups in treatment failure when HFNC were used post-extubation or without prior use of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.22; 5 studies, 1758 participants; low-certainty evidence), or in-hospital mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.31; 5 studies, 1758 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of using HFNC on incidence of pneumonia (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.52; 3 studies, 1750 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and HFNC may result in little or no difference to barotrauma (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.14; 1 study, 830 participants; low-certainty evidence). HFNC may make little or no difference to the length of ICU stay (MD -0.72 days, 95% CI -2.85 to 1.42; 2 studies, 246 participants; low-certainty evidence). The ratio of PaO/FiO may be lower up to 24 hours with HFNC use (MD -58.10 mmHg, 95% CI -71.68 to -44.51; 3 studies, 1086 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether HFNC improved short-term comfort when measured using comfort scores (MD 1.33, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.92; 2 studies, 258 participants) and responses to questionnaires (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.53; 1 study, 168 participants); evidence for short-term comfort was very low certainty. No studies reported on nasal mucosa or skin trauma.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
HFNC may lead to less treatment failure when compared to standard oxygen therapy, but probably makes little or no difference to treatment failure when compared to NIV or NIPPV. For most other review outcomes, we found no evidence of a difference in effect. However, the evidence was often of low or very low certainty. We found a large number of ongoing studies; including these in future updates could increase the certainty or may alter the direction of these effects.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Barotrauma; Bias; Critical Care; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Intubation; Length of Stay; Masks; Nasal Mucosa; Noninvasive Ventilation; Oxygen Inhalation Therapy; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Insufficiency; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 33661521
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010172.pub3 -
Annals of Medicine and Surgery (2012) Jan 2022An ever-increasing number of studies have reported an increased incidence of spontaneous pulmonary barotrauma such as pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, and subcutaneous... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
An ever-increasing number of studies have reported an increased incidence of spontaneous pulmonary barotrauma such as pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, and subcutaneous emphysema in patients with COVID-19. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the value and significance of the available data.
METHODS
A thorough systematic search was conducted to identify studies of barotrauma in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Data analysis of case reports was done using a statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) version 22, and meta-analysis was performed using CMA-3.
RESULTS
We identified a total of 4488 studies after thorough database searching.118 case reports and series, and 15 observational studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Fifteen studies were included in the quantitative analysis. The observational studies reported barotrauma in 4.2% (2.4-7.3%) among hospitalized patients; 15.6% (11-21.8%) among critically ill patients; and 18.4% (13-25.3%) in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, showing a linear relationship of barotrauma with the severity of the disease. In addition, barotrauma was associated with a longer length of hospital stay, more extended ICU stay, and higher in-hospital mortality. Also, a slightly higher odds of barotrauma was seen in COVID-19 ARDS compared with non-COVID-19 ARDS.
CONCLUSION
COVID-19 pneumonia is associated with a higher incidence of barotrauma. It presents unique challenges for invasive and non-invasive ventilation management. Further studies are required to unravel the underlying pathophysiology and develop safer management strategies.
PubMed: 35003730
DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.103221 -
Asian Cardiovascular & Thoracic Annals Feb 2022There are various reports of air leaks with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We undertook a systematic review of all published case reports and series to analyse the...
INTRODUCTION
There are various reports of air leaks with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We undertook a systematic review of all published case reports and series to analyse the types of air leaks in COVID-19 and their outcomes.
METHODS
The literature search from PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar databases was performed from the start of the pandemic till 31 March 2021. The inclusion criteria were case reports or series on (1) laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, (2) with the individual patient details, and (3) reported diagnosis of one or more air leak syndrome (pneumothorax, subcutaneous emphysema, pneumomediastinum, pneumoperitoneum, pneumopericardium).
RESULTS
A total of 105 studies with 188 patients were included in the final analysis. The median age was 56.02 (SD 15.53) years, 80% males, 11% had previous respiratory disease, and 8% were smokers. Severe or critical COVID-19 was present in 50.6% of the patients. Pneumothorax (68%) was the most common type of air leak. Most patients (56.7%) required intervention with lower mortality (29.1% vs. 44.1%, p = 0.07) and intercostal drain (95.9%) was the preferred interventional management. More than half of the patients developed air leak on spontaneous breathing. The mortality was significantly higher in patients who developed air leak with positive pressure ventilation (49%, p < 0.001) and required escalation of respiratory support (39%, p = 0.006).
CONCLUSION
Air leak in COVID-19 can occur spontaneously without positive pressure ventilation, higher transpulmonary pressures, and other risk factors like previous respiratory disease or smoking. The mortality is significantly higher if associated with positive pressure ventilation and escalation of respiratory support.
Topics: COVID-19; Female; Humans; Male; Mediastinal Emphysema; Middle Aged; Pneumothorax; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34247490
DOI: 10.1177/02184923211031134 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023This is the third update of the original Cochrane Review published in July 2005 and updated previously in 2012 and 2016. Cancer is a significant global health issue.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is the third update of the original Cochrane Review published in July 2005 and updated previously in 2012 and 2016. Cancer is a significant global health issue. Radiotherapy is a treatment modality for many malignancies, and about 50% of people having radiotherapy will be long-term survivors. Some will experience late radiation tissue injury (LRTI), developing months or years following radiotherapy. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has been suggested as a treatment for LRTI based on the ability to improve the blood supply to these tissues. It is postulated that HBOT may result in both healing of tissues and the prevention of complications following surgery and radiotherapy.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) for treating or preventing late radiation tissue injury (LRTI) compared to regimens that excluded HBOT.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 24 January 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of HBOT versus no HBOT on LRTI prevention or healing.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. survival from time of randomisation to death from any cause; 2. complete or substantial resolution of clinical problem; 3. site-specific outcomes; and 4.
ADVERSE EVENTS
Our secondary outcomes were 5. resolution of pain; 6. improvement in quality of life, function, or both; and 7. site-specific outcomes. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Eighteen studies contributed to this review (1071 participants) with publications ranging from 1985 to 2022. We added four new studies to this updated review and evidence for the treatment of radiation proctitis, radiation cystitis, and the prevention and treatment of osteoradionecrosis (ORN). HBOT may not prevent death at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.83; I = 0%; 3 RCTs, 166 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is some evidence that HBOT may result in complete resolution or provide significant improvement of LRTI (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.89; I = 64%; 5 RCTs, 468 participants; low-certainty evidence) and HBOT may result in a large reduction in wound dehiscence following head and neck soft tissue surgery (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.94; I = 70%; 2 RCTs, 264 participants; low-certainty evidence). In addition, pain scores in ORN improve slightly after HBOT at 12 months (mean difference (MD) -10.72, 95% CI -18.97 to -2.47; I = 40%; 2 RCTs, 157 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding adverse events, HBOT results in a higher risk of a reduction in visual acuity (RR 4.03, 95% CI 1.65 to 9.84; 5 RCTs, 438 participants; high-certainty evidence). There was a risk of ear barotrauma in people receiving HBOT when no sham pressurisation was used for the control group (RR 9.08, 95% CI 2.21 to 37.26; I = 0%; 4 RCTs, 357 participants; high-certainty evidence), but no such increase when a sham pressurisation was employed (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.21; I = 74%; 2 RCTs, 158 participants; high-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
These small studies suggest that for people with LRTI affecting tissues of the head, neck, bladder and rectum, HBOT may be associated with improved outcomes (low- to moderate-certainty evidence). HBOT may also result in a reduced risk of wound dehiscence and a modest reduction in pain following head and neck irradiation. However, HBOT is unlikely to influence the risk of death in the short term. HBOT also carries a risk of adverse events, including an increased risk of a reduction in visual acuity (usually temporary) and of ear barotrauma on compression. Hence, the application of HBOT to selected participants may be justified. The small number of studies and participants, and the methodological and reporting inadequacies of some of the primary studies included in this review demand a cautious interpretation. More information is required on the subset of disease severity and tissue type affected that is most likely to benefit from this therapy, the time for which we can expect any benefits to persist and the most appropriate oxygen dose. Further research is required to establish the optimum participant selection and timing of any therapy. An economic evaluation should also be undertaken.
Topics: Humans; Hyperbaric Oxygenation; Radiation Injuries; Neoplasms; Osteoradionecrosis; Disease Progression; Pain; Barotrauma
PubMed: 37585677
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005005.pub5 -
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine Aug 2022Blast polytrauma is among the most serious mechanisms of injury confronted by medical providers. There are currently no specific studies or guidelines that define risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Blast polytrauma is among the most serious mechanisms of injury confronted by medical providers. There are currently no specific studies or guidelines that define risk factors for mortality in the context of pediatric blast injuries or describe pediatric blast injury profiles.
OBJECTIVE
The objectives of this study were to evaluate risk factors for pediatric mortality and to describe differences in injury profiles between explosions related to terrorism versus unrelated to terrorism within the pediatric population.
METHODS
A PRISMA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed where articles published from the years 2000-2021 were extracted from PubMed. Mortality and injury profile data were extracted from articles that met inclusion criteria. A bivariant unadjusted odds ratio (OR) analysis was performed to establish protective and harmful factors associated with mortality and to describe the injury profiles of blasts related to terrorism. Statistical significance was established at P < .05.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight articles were included and described a total of 222,638 unique injuries. Factors associated with increased mortality included if the explosion was related to terrorism (OR = 32.73; 95% CI, 28.80-37.21; P < .05) and if the explosion involved high-grade explosives utilized in the Global War on Terror ([GWOT] OR = 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.44; P < .05). Factors associated with decreased mortality included if the patient was resuscitated in a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-affiliated combat trauma hospital (OR = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.62; P < .05); if the explosive was fireworks (OR = 3.20×10-5; 95% CI, 2.00×10-6-5.16×10-4; P < .05); and if the explosion occurred in the United States (OR = 2.40×10-5; 95% CI, 1.51×10-6-3.87×10-4; P < .05). On average, victims of explosions related to terrorism were 10.30 years old (SD = 2.73) with 68.96% (SD = 17.58%) of victims reported as male. Comparison of victims of explosions related to terrorism revealed a higher incidence of thoracoabdominal trauma (30.2% versus 8.6%), similar incidence of craniocerebral trauma (39.5% versus 43.1%), and lower incidence of extremity trauma (31.8% versus 48.3%) compared to victims of explosions unrelated to terrorism.
CONCLUSION
Explosions related to terrorism are associated with increased mortality and unique injury profiles compared to explosions unrelated to terrorism in the pediatric population. Such findings are important for optimizing disaster medical education of pediatric providers in preparation for and management of acute sequelae of blast injuries-terror-related and otherwise.
Topics: Blast Injuries; Child; Explosions; Hospitals; Humans; Male; Multiple Trauma; Terrorism
PubMed: 35603691
DOI: 10.1017/S1049023X22000747 -
Revue Des Maladies Respiratoires Jan 2020Cocaine can be responsible for many psychiatric and/or somatic disorders. The aim of this systematic literature review of data was to expose relations between cocaine...
Cocaine can be responsible for many psychiatric and/or somatic disorders. The aim of this systematic literature review of data was to expose relations between cocaine use and pulmonary complications. Cocaine can be responsible for acute respiratory symptoms (cough, black sputum, hemoptysis, dyspnea, wheezing, chest pain) and for various pulmonary disorders including barotrauma (pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, subcutaneous emphysema, pneumopericardium), airway damage, asthma, bronchiolitis obliterans with organizing pneumonia, acute pulmonary edema, alveolar hemorrhage, alveolar pneumonia with carbonaceous material, bullous emphysema, acute eosinophilic pneumonia, pulmonary granulomatosis caused by talc or cellulose, interstitial pneumonitis and pulmonary fibrosis, vasculitis, pulmonary hypertension, pulmonary embolism and pulmonary infarction, mycotic pulmonary arterial aneurysms, septic emboli, aspiration pneumonia, community-acquired pneumonia, HIV-related opportunistic infections, latent tuberculosis infection, pulmonary tuberculosis, lung cancer and crack lung. Some of these complications are serious and may have a fatal outcome. Pulmonary function tests, thoracic tomodensitometry, bronchial fibroscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage and lung scintigraphy may be an aid to the diagnosis of these pulmonary compications. Cocaine use must be sought in case of respiratory symptoms in young persons.
Topics: Cocaine; Cocaine-Related Disorders; Drug Users; Humans; Lung Diseases
PubMed: 31883817
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmr.2019.11.641 -
Undersea & Hyperbaric Medicine :... 2021Multiday hyperbaric exposure has been shown to reduce the incidence of decompression sickness (DCS) of compressed-air workers. This effect, termed acclimatization, has...
Multiday hyperbaric exposure has been shown to reduce the incidence of decompression sickness (DCS) of compressed-air workers. This effect, termed acclimatization, has been addressed in a number of studies, but no comprehensive review has been published. This systematic review reports the findings of a literature search. PubMed, Ovid Embase, The Cochrane Library and Rubicon Research Repository were searched for studies reporting DCS incidence, venous gas embolism (VGE) or subjective health reports after multiday hyperbaric exposure in man and experimental animals. Twenty-nine studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. Three epidemiological studies reported statistically significant acclimatization to DCS in compressed-air workers after multiday hyperbaric exposure. One experimental study observed less itching after standardized simulated dives. Two human experimental studies reported lower DCS incidence after multiday immersed diving. Acclimatization to DCS has been observed in six animal species. Multiday diving had less consistent effect on VGE after hyperbaric exposure in man. Four studies observed acclimatization while no statistically significant acclimatization was reported in the remaining eight studies. A questionnaire study did not report any change in self-perceived health after multiday diving. This systematic review has not identified any study suggesting a sensitizing effect of multiday diving, and there is a lack of data supporting benefit of a day off diving after a certain number of consecutive diving days. The results suggest that multiday hyperbaric exposure probably will have an acclimatizing effect and protects from DCS. The mechanisms causing acclimatization, extent of protection and optimal procedure for acclimatization has been insufficiently investigated.
Topics: Animals; Cats; Dogs; Humans; Rabbits; Rats; Acclimatization; Atmospheric Pressure; Decompression Sickness; Diagnostic Self Evaluation; Diving; Embolism, Air; Goats; Hyperbaric Oxygenation; Incidence; Occupational Diseases; Rats, Sprague-Dawley; Reference Values; Time Factors
PubMed: 33975403
DOI: 10.22462/03.04.2021.3 -
The Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and... Jan 2023To perform a systematic review to investigate the common presenting symptoms of barosinusitis, the incidence of those findings, the methods for diagnosis, as well as the...
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review to investigate the common presenting symptoms of barosinusitis, the incidence of those findings, the methods for diagnosis, as well as the medical and surgical treatment options.
METHODS
A review of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for articles published between 1967 and 2020 was conducted with the following search term: aerosinusitis OR "sinus squeeze" OR barosinusitis OR (barotrauma AND sinusitis) OR (barotrauma AND rhinosinusitis). Twenty-seven articles encompassing 232 patients met inclusion criteria and were queried for demographics, etiology, presentation, and medical and surgical treatments.
RESULTS
Mean age of patients was 33.3 years, where 21.7% were females and 78.3% were males. Causes of barotrauma include diving (57.3%), airplane descent (26.7%), and general anesthesia (0.4%). The most common presentations were frontal pain (44.0%), epistaxis (25.4%), and maxillary pain (10.3%). Most patients received topical steroids (44.0%), oral steroids (28.4%), decongestants (20.7%), and antibiotics (15.5%). For surgical treatment, most patients received functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) (49.6%). Adjunctive surgeries include middle meatal or maxillary antrostomy (20.7%), septoplasty (15.5%), and turbinate surgery (9.1%). The most efficacious medical treatments are as follows: 63.6% success rate with oral steroids (66 treated), 50.0% success rate with topical steroids (102 treated), and 50.0% success rate analgesics (10 treated). For surgical treatments received by greater than 10% of the sample, the most efficacious was FESS (91.5% success rate, 108 treated).
CONCLUSION
Oral and topical steroids should be first line therapies. If refractory, then functional endoscopic sinus surgery is an effective treatment.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Adult; Endoscopy; Sinusitis; Barotrauma; Steroids; Chronic Disease; Craniocerebral Trauma; Pain
PubMed: 35130739
DOI: 10.1177/00034894211072353 -
Respiratory Care Jan 2021Studies evaluating neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) in the management of ARDS have produced inconsistent results in terms of their effect on mortality. The purpose... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Studies evaluating neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) in the management of ARDS have produced inconsistent results in terms of their effect on mortality. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate differences in mortality comparing subjects with ARDS who received NMBA to those who received placebo or usual care.
METHODS
We searched Ovid, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials evaluating administration of NMBAs in subjects with ARDS.
RESULTS
We included 6 studies ( = 1,558 subjects) from 1,814 abstracts identified by our search strategy. The use of early, continuous-infusion NMBAs reduces the risk of short-term (ie, 21-28-d) mortality (relative risk 0.71 [95% CI 0.52-0.98], = .030, = 60%) in subjects with ARDS but does not reduce the risk of long-term (ie, 90-d) mortality (relative risk 0.81 [95% CI 0.64-1.04], = .10, = 54%). NMBAs decreased the risk of barotrauma (relative risk 0.55 [95% CI 0.35-0.85], = .008, = 0%) and pneumothorax (relative risk 0.46 [95% CI 0.28-0.77], = .003, = 0%) compared to control.
CONCLUSIONS
In subjects with ARDS, early use of NMBAs improves oxygenation, reduces the incidence of ventilator-induced lung injury, and decreases 21-28-d mortality, but it does not improve 90-d mortality. NMBAs should be considered for select patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS for short durations.
Topics: Barotrauma; Humans; Lung; Neuromuscular Blocking Agents; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; Time Factors
PubMed: 32843506
DOI: 10.4187/respcare.07849