-
Annals of the American Thoracic Society Oct 2017In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), lung recruitment maneuvers (LRMs) may prevent ventilator-induced lung injury and improve survival. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
RATIONALE
In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), lung recruitment maneuvers (LRMs) may prevent ventilator-induced lung injury and improve survival.
OBJECTIVES
To summarize the current evidence in support of the use of LRMs in adult patients with ARDS and to inform the recently published American Thoracic Society/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Society of Critical Care Medicine clinical practice guideline on mechanical ventilation in ARDS.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing mechanical ventilation strategies with and without LRMs. Eligible trials were identified from among previously published systematic reviews and an updated literature search. Data on 28-day mortality, oxygenation, adverse events, and use of rescue therapy were collected, and results were pooled using random effects models weighted by inverse variance. Strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.
RESULTS
We screened 430 citations and previous systematic reviews and found six trials eligible for inclusion (n = 1,423 patients in total). The type of LRM varied widely between trials, and five of the trials involved a cointervention with a higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) ventilation strategy. Risk of bias was deemed high in one trial. In the primary analysis, the only trial without a cointervention showed that LRMs were associated with reduced mortality (one trial; risk ratio [RR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.98; evidence grade = low). Meta-analysis of all six trials also suggested a significant mortality reduction (six trials; RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95; evidence grade = moderate), and the use of a higher PEEP cointervention did not significantly modify the mortality effect (P = 0.27 for heterogeneity). LRMs were also associated with improved oxygenation after 24 hours (six trials; mean increase, 52 mm Hg; 95% CI, 23-81 mm Hg) and less frequent requirement for rescue therapy (three trials; RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.94). LRMs were not associated with an increased rate of barotrauma (four trials; RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.46-1.55). The rate of hemodynamic compromise was not significantly increased with LRMs (three trials; RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.92-1.78).
CONCLUSIONS
Randomized trials suggest that LRMs in combination with a higher PEEP ventilation strategy reduce mortality, but confidence in this finding is limited. Further trials are required to confirm benefit from LRMs in adults with ARDS.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Lung Compliance; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury
PubMed: 29043837
DOI: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201704-340OT -
Diving and Hyperbaric Medicine Dec 2021Inner ear barotrauma (IEBt) and inner ear decompression sickness (IEDCS) are the two dysbaric inner ear injuries associated with diving. Both conditions manifest as... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Inner ear barotrauma (IEBt) and inner ear decompression sickness (IEDCS) are the two dysbaric inner ear injuries associated with diving. Both conditions manifest as cochleovestibular symptoms, causing difficulties in differential diagnosis and possibly delaying (or leading to inappropriate) treatment.
METHODS
This was a systematic review of IEBt and IEDCS cases aiming to define diving and clinical variables that help differentiate these conditions. The search strategy consisted of a preliminary search, followed by a systematic search covering three databases (PubMed, Medline, Scopus). Studies were included when published in English and adequately reporting one or more IEBt or IEDCS patients in diving. Concerns regarding missing and duplicate data were minimised by contacting original authors when necessary.
RESULTS
In total, 25 studies with IEBt patients (n = 183) and 18 studies with IEDCS patients (n = 397) were included. Variables most useful in differentiating between IEBt and IEDCS were dive type (free diving versus scuba diving), dive gas (compressed air versus mixed gas), dive profile (mean depth 13 versus 43 metres of seawater), symptom onset (when descending versus when ascending or surfacing), distribution of cochleovestibular symptoms (vestibular versus cochlear) and absence or presence of other DCS symptoms. Symptoms of difficult middle ear equalisation or findings consistent with middle ear barotrauma could not be reliably assessed in this context, being insufficiently reported in the IEDCS literature.
CONCLUSIONS
There are multiple useful variables to help distinguish IEBt from IEDCS. Symptoms of difficult middle ear equalisation or findings consistent with middle ear barotrauma require further study as means of distinguishing IEBt and IEDCS.
Topics: Barotrauma; Decompression Sickness; Diagnosis, Differential; Diving; Ear, Inner; Humans
PubMed: 34897597
DOI: 10.28920/dhm51.4.328-337 -
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial... May 2023E-cigarettes have become increasingly popular devices used to consume nicotine in recent years. There is a growing body of evidence regarding the risk of spontaneous...
PURPOSE
E-cigarettes have become increasingly popular devices used to consume nicotine in recent years. There is a growing body of evidence regarding the risk of spontaneous explosion of these devices causing burn and projectile injuries. The primary purpose of this review was to summarize all injuries to the oral and maxillofacial region secondary to explosion of e-cigarettes. The secondary purpose was to propose an initial management algorithm for such injuries based on the findings in the literature. This review also aims to test the hypothesis that e-cigarette explosive injuries to the oral region were associated with an increased risk of intubation and surgery and examine whether any other injury pattern was associated with an increased risk of intubation or surgery.
METHODS
A cohort study based on identifying cases in the literature was conducted to summarize injuries to the oral and maxillofacial region and examine the associations between injury types and location and management. A literature search of the major biomedical databases was conducted in September 2022 using terms such as e-cigarette, explosion, blast, trauma, and burn, among others, which yielded 922 studies. Nonclinical studies, review articles, and studies without injuries to the facial region were excluded. Study subjects were recorded for demographics, device characteristics, injury mechanism, injury location, management, and complications. Chi-squared analysis was used to determine if the predictor variables of type of injury (burn or projectile) and its associated location (ocular, facial, or intraoral for burns and facial thirds for projectile) were associated with the outcomes of intubation and surgical management. The collected data were then used as a guide to propose an initial management algorithm for these injuries.
RESULTS
Twenty eight studies, including 20 case reports and 8 case series met the inclusion criteria. A total of 32 explosions of e-cigarettes to 32 patients caused 105 recorded injuries to the facial region. Projectile injuries made up 73.3% (n = 77) of all facial injuries, while burn injuries made up of 26.7% (n = 28). There were 14 (43.8%) patients who suffered both projectile and burn injuries. Burn injuries mostly involved the face (64.3%, n = 18), oral cavity (25%, n = 7), and eye (10.7%, n = 7). The majority (81.8%, n = 63) of projectile injuries occurred in the lower facial third. There were 20 (62.5%) patients who suffered a bone or tooth fracture. Management of injuries involved surgery in 62.5% (n = 20) of patients, which included open reduction and internal fixation of fractures, dental extraction, bone and skin grafts, and ocular surgery. A complication rate of 44.4% (n = 8) was observed across studies that reported on follow-up. There was no statistically significant association between explosive injury to the oral region and intubation or surgical management. There was also no other statistically significant association between any other injury type and location with intubation or surgical management.
CONCLUSIONS
E-cigarettes are at risk for spontaneous combustion that can cause serious oral and maxillofacial injuries, particularly to the lower facial third and commonly requiring surgical management. Safety of these devices should be improved through increased user education and regulation.
Topics: Humans; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Cohort Studies; Burns; Maxillofacial Injuries; Explosions; Blast Injuries; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36806607
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2023.01.009 -
The British Journal of Ophthalmology Dec 2010To provide a systematic review on ocular firework trauma with emphasis on incidence and patient demographics, the extent of ocular trauma and visual function loss, and... (Review)
Review
AIM
To provide a systematic review on ocular firework trauma with emphasis on incidence and patient demographics, the extent of ocular trauma and visual function loss, and firework regulation effects on injury rates.
METHODS
A literature search was performed using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Demographic characteristics of ocular firework casualties were obtained and incidence rates of sustained trauma and vision loss calculated.
RESULTS
Twenty-six relevant articles were suitable for calculation of trauma incidence and patient demographics, of which 17 articles could be used for calculating trauma severity and vision loss. Victims were male (77%), young (82%) and often bystander (47%). Most of the trauma was mild and temporary. Penetrating eye trauma, globe contusions and burns accounted for 18.2%, with a 3.9% enucleation rate. Mean visual acuity was >10/20 in 56.8%, with severe vision loss (<10/200) in 16.4%. Countries using restrictive firework legislation show 87% less eye trauma (p<0.005).
CONCLUSIONS
One in six ocular firework traumas show severe vision loss, mostly in young males. Bystanders are as frequently injured. Firework traumas are a preventable cause of severe ocular injury and blindness because countries using restrictive firework legislation have remarkable lower trauma incidence rates.
Topics: Age Distribution; Blast Injuries; Blindness; Eye Burns; Eye Injuries; Eye Injuries, Penetrating; Female; Humans; Incidence; Male; Sex Distribution; Trauma Severity Indices; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 19846415
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2009.168419 -
PloS One Jan 2011Acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are life threatening clinical conditions seen in critically ill patients with diverse underlying... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are life threatening clinical conditions seen in critically ill patients with diverse underlying illnesses. Lung injury may be perpetuated by ventilation strategies that do not limit lung volumes and airway pressures. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pressure and volume-limited (PVL) ventilation strategies with more traditional mechanical ventilation in adults with ALI and ARDS.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We searched Medline, EMBASE, HEALTHSTAR and CENTRAL, related articles on PubMed™, conference proceedings and bibliographies of identified articles for randomized trials comparing PVL ventilation with traditional approaches to ventilation in critically ill adults with ALI and ARDS. Two reviewers independently selected trials, assessed trial quality, and abstracted data. We identified ten trials (n = 1,749) meeting study inclusion criteria. Tidal volumes achieved in control groups were at the lower end of the traditional range of 10-15 mL/kg. We found a clinically important but borderline statistically significant reduction in hospital mortality with PVL [relative risk (RR) 0.84; 95% CI 0.70, 1.00; p = 0.05]. This reduction in risk was attenuated (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.74, 1.09, p = 0.27) in a sensitivity analysis which excluded 2 trials that combined PVL with open-lung strategies and stopped early for benefit. We found no effect of PVL on barotrauma; however, use of paralytic agents increased significantly with PVL (RR 1.37; 95% CI, 1.04, 1.82; p = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review suggests that PVL strategies for mechanical ventilation in ALI and ARDS reduce mortality and are associated with increased use of paralytic agents.
Topics: Acute Lung Injury; Humans; Pressure; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Distress Syndrome
PubMed: 21298026
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014623 -
Annals of the American Thoracic Society Oct 2017By minimizing tidal lung strain and maintaining alveolar recruitment, high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) may protect against ventilator-induced lung injury. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
RATIONALE
By minimizing tidal lung strain and maintaining alveolar recruitment, high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) may protect against ventilator-induced lung injury.
OBJECTIVES
To summarize the current evidence in support of the use of HFOV in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing mortality rates with the use of HFOV versus conventional mechanical ventilation for adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Eligible trials were identified from previously published systematic reviews and an updated literature search. Data on 28-day mortality, oxygenation, adverse events, and use of rescue therapies were collected; effects were pooled using random effects models weighted by inverse variance. Strength of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.
RESULTS
Six trials were eligible for inclusion (total n = 1,715 patients). Four trials mandated lung-protective ventilation in the control group and one trial applied a higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) ventilation strategy in the control group. None of the trials were judged to be at high risk of bias, though all were unblinded. In trials that did not systematically employ any cointerventions with HFOV and that targeted low tidal volumes in the patients randomized to conventional ventilation (primary analysis), HFOV had no significant effect on mortality (three trials; risk ratio [RR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88 to 1.48; evidence grade = high). Pooled analysis of all six trials also did not suggest a significant mortality reduction (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.24; evidence grade = low). The single trial that employed a conventional ventilation strategy with both lower tidal volumes and higher PEEP as control reported higher mortality in patients receiving HFOV (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.79). HFOV was not associated with improved oxygenation after 24 hours (five trials; mean increase of 10 mm Hg; 95% CI, -16 to 37 mm Hg). Rates of barotrauma were not different between HFOV and conventional ventilation, although significant benefit or harm could not be excluded (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.61 to 2.17).
CONCLUSIONS
Published randomized trials suggest that HFOV is not associated with a mortality benefit, and may even be harmful in comparison to ventilation with low tidal volumes and higher levels of PEEP.
Topics: Adult; High-Frequency Ventilation; Humans; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; Tidal Volume; Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury
PubMed: 29043832
DOI: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201704-341OT -
Diving and Hyperbaric Medicine Jun 2018Rhinologic and oral maxillofacial complications from scuba diving are common, representing approximately 35% of head and neck pathology related to diving. We performed a...
Rhinologic and oral maxillofacial complications from scuba diving are common, representing approximately 35% of head and neck pathology related to diving. We performed a systematic and comprehensive literature review on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of rhinologic and oral maxillofacial pathology related to diving. This included complications due to sinus barotrauma, barodontalgia, odontocrexis, temporomandibular joint dysfunction, partially dentulous patients, and considerations for patients following major head and neck surgery. Of 113 papers accessed, 32 were included in the final synthesis. We created a succinct summary on each topic that should inform clinical decision making by otolaryngologists, dive medicine specialists and primary care providers when faced with pathology of these anatomic sub-sites.
Topics: Barotrauma; Diving; Ear Diseases; Humans; Paranasal Sinus Diseases; Toothache
PubMed: 29888379
DOI: 10.28920/dhm48.2.79-83 -
Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance Nov 2018A review of decompression sickness (DCS) cases associated with the NASA altitude physiological training (APT) program at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) motivated us to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A review of decompression sickness (DCS) cases associated with the NASA altitude physiological training (APT) program at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) motivated us to place our findings into the larger context of DCS prevalence from other APT centers. We reviewed JSC records from 1999 to 2016 and 14 publications from 1968 to 2004 about DCS prevalence in other APT programs. We performed a meta-analysis of 15 APT profiles (488 cases / 385,116 exposures). We used meta-regression to evaluate the relation between estimated exposures and probability of DCS in a test group, accounting for the heterogeneity between studies. Our in-house review identified 6 Type I DCS (1 from an inside observer) and 1 Type II DCS. There were 6 cases in 9560 student hypobaric exposures from 3 NASA training flights; a student pooled prevalence rate of 0.44 cases / 1000 exposures compared to 1.44 cases / 1000 from 12 published APT profiles. The overall pooled DCS prevalence rate was 1.16 cases / 1000 exposures. There was substantial heterogeneity in DCS prevalence across studies. Denitrogenation time, exposure pressure, and exposure time were associated with probability of DCS in the meta-regression model. While the overall DCS prevalence rate is relatively low, there is marked heterogeneity among profiles. The pooled DCS prevalence rate estimate for the NASA profiles was lower than the overall rate. Variability in APT profile DCS prevalence could be further explained given student level and additional test-level covariates.
Topics: Aerospace Medicine; Altitude; Altitude Sickness; Decompression Sickness; Humans; Military Personnel; Physical Conditioning, Human; United States; United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration
PubMed: 30352646
DOI: 10.3357/AMHP.5135.2018 -
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 -
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine Feb 2023To explore the evidence surrounding the use of Airway Pressure Release Ventilation (APRV) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A Systematic electronic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To explore the evidence surrounding the use of Airway Pressure Release Ventilation (APRV) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A Systematic electronic search of PUBMED, EMBASE, and the WHO COVID-19 database. We also searched the grey literature via Google and preprint servers (medRxive and research square). Eligible studies included randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing APRV to conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and reporting at least one of the following outcomes; in-hospital mortality, ventilator free days (VFDs), ICU length of stay (LOS), changes in gas exchange parameters, and barotrauma. Two authors independently screened and selected articles for inclusion and extracted data in a pre-specified form. Of 181 articles screened, seven studies (one randomised controlled trial, two cohort studies, and four before-after studies) were included comprising 354 patients. APRV was initiated at a mean of 1.2-13 days after intubation. APRV wasn't associated with improved mortality compared to CMV (relative risk [RR], 1.20; 95% CI 0.70-2.05; , 61%) neither better VFDs (ratio of means [RoM], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.52-1.24; , 0%) nor ICU LOS (RoM, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.79-1.51; , 57%). Compared to CMV, APRV was associated with a 33% increase in PaO/FiO ratio (RoM, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.21-1.48; , 29%) and a 9% decrease in PaCO (RoM, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.15; , 0%). There was no significant increased risk of barotrauma compared to CMV (RR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.60-4.00; , 0%). In adult patients with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation, APRV is associated with improved gas exchange but not mortality nor VFDs when compared with CMV. The results were limited by high uncertainty given the low quality of the available studies and limited number of patients. Adequately powered and well-designed clinical trials to define the role of APRV in COVID-19 patients are still needed. .
Topics: Humans; Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; COVID-19; Respiratory Insufficiency
PubMed: 35733377
DOI: 10.1177/08850666221109779