-
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 -
BMJ Open Nov 2020To determine whether neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) can decrease the mortality of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and improve their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) can decrease the mortality of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and improve their clinical outcomes.
DESIGN
Systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov.
METHODS
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the treatment effect of NMBAs with that of placebo (or traditional treatment) in patients with ARDS were carefully selected. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were 21-28 days mortality, NMBA-related complications (barotrauma, pneumothorax and intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired muscle weakness), days free of ventilation and days not in the ICU by day 28, Medical Research Council score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score and arterial oxygen tension (PaO)/fractional inspired oxygen (FiO) (at 48 hours and 72 hours). Random-effects meta-regression was used to explore models involving potential moderators. Trial sequential analysis was performed to estimate the cumulative effect on mortality across RCTs.
RESULTS
NMBAs were not associated with reduced 90-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.85; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.09; p=0.20). However, they decreased the 21-28 days mortality (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96; p=0.02) and the rates of pneumothorax (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.77; p=0.003) and barotrauma (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.86; p=0.008). In addition, NMBAs increased PaO/FiO at 48 hours (mean difference (MD) 18.91; 95% CI 4.29 to 33.53; p=0.01) and 72 hours (MD 12.27; 95% CI 4.65 to 19.89; p=0.002). Meta-regression revealed an association between sample size (p=0.042) and short-term mortality. Publication year (p=0.050), sedation strategy (p=0.047) and sample size (p=0.046) were independently associated with PaO/FiO at 48 hours.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, the results suggested that use of NMBAs might reduce 21-28 days mortality, NMBA-related complications and oxygenation. However, NMBAs did not reduce the 90-day mortality of patients with ARDS, which contradicts a previous meta-analysis.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019139440.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Lung; Neuromuscular Blocking Agents; Prospective Studies; Respiratory Distress Syndrome
PubMed: 33444180
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037737 -
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental Dec 2020In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), lung recruitment could be maximised with the use of recruitment manoeuvres (RM) or applying a positive... (Review)
Review
Effects of higher PEEP and recruitment manoeuvres on mortality in patients with ARDS: a systematic review, meta-analysis, meta-regression and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.
PURPOSE
In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), lung recruitment could be maximised with the use of recruitment manoeuvres (RM) or applying a positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) higher than what is necessary to maintain minimal adequate oxygenation. We aimed to determine whether ventilation strategies using higher PEEP and/or RMs could decrease mortality in patients with ARDS.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL from 1996 to December 2019, included randomized controlled trials comparing ventilation with higher PEEP and/or RMs to strategies with lower PEEP and no RMs in patients with ARDS. We computed pooled estimates with a DerSimonian-Laird mixed-effects model, assessing mortality and incidence of barotrauma, population characteristics, physiologic variables and ventilator settings. We performed a trial sequential analysis (TSA) and a meta-regression.
RESULTS
Excluding two studies that used tidal volume (V) reduction as co-intervention, we included 3870 patients from 10 trials using higher PEEP alone (n = 3), combined with RMs (n = 6) or RMs alone (n = 1). We did not observe differences in mortality (relative risk, RR 0.96, 95% confidence interval, CI [0.84-1.09], p = 0.50) nor in incidence of barotrauma (RR 1.22, 95% CI [0.93-1.61], p = 0.16). In the meta-regression, the PEEP difference between intervention and control group at day 1 and the use of RMs were not associated with increased risk of barotrauma. The TSA reached the required information size for mortality (n = 2928), and the z-line surpassed the futility boundary.
CONCLUSIONS
At low V, the routine use of higher PEEP and/or RMs did not reduce mortality in unselected patients with ARDS.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42017082035 .
PubMed: 33336325
DOI: 10.1186/s40635-020-00322-2 -
The Journal of Laryngology and Otology Jan 2021Facial nerve baroparesis is a rare phenomenon which has been reported during flight. It is thought to occur due to ischaemic neuropraxia on the facial nerve as...
BACKGROUND
Facial nerve baroparesis is a rare phenomenon which has been reported during flight. It is thought to occur due to ischaemic neuropraxia on the facial nerve as middle-ear pressure increases in the presence of Eustachian tube dysfunction and force is transmitted through a dehiscent facial nerve canal.
METHOD
This study presents an aviation-associated, right-sided facial nerve palsy as well as presenting the results of a systematic review that was performed on the available literature using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Full-text articles from Medline, PubMed and Embase were used, as well as associated reference lists. This study systematically reviews the literature to discuss presentation, investigations performed and an approach to management of this rare condition.
RESULTS
This study identified 23 cases in the literature (including the case presented in this study) of facial nerve baroparesis.
CONCLUSION
Facial nerve baroparesis is a mostly temporary rare phenomenon that can be managed effectively with ventilation tube insertion. In the event of long-standing facial nerve palsy after descent of the aircraft, urgent myringotomy should be performed to prevent permanent facial nerve damage.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Male; Aerospace Medicine; Ear, Middle; Facial Paralysis; Pressure
PubMed: 33292875
DOI: 10.1017/S0022215120002431 -
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental Oct 2020Existing clinical practice guidelines support the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); however, a recent large... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Existing clinical practice guidelines support the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); however, a recent large randomized clinical trial (RCT) has questioned this practice. Therefore, we updated a previous systematic review to determine the efficacy and safety of NMBAs in ARDS.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE (October 2012 to July 2019), the Cochrane (Central) database, and clinical trial registries ( ClinicalTrials.gov , ISRCTN Register, and WHO ICTRP) for RCTs comparing the effects of NMBA as a continuous infusion versus placebo or no NMBA infusion (but allowing intermittent NMBA boluses) on patient-important outcomes for adults with ARDS. Two independent reviewers assessed the methodologic quality of the primary studies and abstracted data.
RESULTS
Seven RCTs, including four new RCTs, met eligibility criteria for this review. These trials enrolled 1598 patients with moderate to severe ARDS at centers in the USA, France, and China. All trials assessed short-term continuous infusions of cisatracurium or vecuronium. The pooled estimate for mortality outcomes showed significant statistical heterogeneity, which was only explained by a subgroup analysis by depth of sedation in the control arm. A continuous NMBA infusion did not improve mortality when compared to a light sedation strategy with no NMBA infusion (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% CI 0.86-1.15; moderate certainty; P = 0.93). On the other hand, continuous NMBA infusion reduced mortality when compared to deep sedation with as needed NMBA boluses (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.57-0.89; low certainty; P = 0.003). Continuous NMBA infusion reduced the rate of barotrauma (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.35-0.85, moderate certainty; P = 0.008) across eligible trials, but the effect on ventilator-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU-acquired weakness was uncertain.
CONCLUSIONS
Inconsistency in study methods and findings precluded the pooling of all trials for mortality. In a pre-planned sensitivity analysis, the impact of NMBA infusion on mortality depends on the strategy used in the control arm, showing reduced mortality when compared to deep sedation, but no effect on mortality when compared to lighter sedation. In both situations, a continuous NMBA infusion may reduce the risk of barotrauma, but the effects on other patient-important outcomes remain unclear. Future research, including an individual patient data meta-analysis, could help clarify some of the observed findings in this updated systematic review.
PubMed: 33095344
DOI: 10.1186/s40635-020-00348-6 -
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 -
BMJ Military Health Aug 2020Fractures have been a common denominator of the injury patterns observed over the past century of warfare. The fractures typified by the blast and ballistic injuries of...
INTRODUCTION
Fractures have been a common denominator of the injury patterns observed over the past century of warfare. The fractures typified by the blast and ballistic injuries of war lead to high rates of bone loss, soft tissue injury and infection, greatly increasing the likelihood of non-union. Despite this, no reliable treatment strategy for non-union exists. This literature review aims to explore the rates of non-union across a century of conflict, in order to determine whether our ability to heal the fractures of war has improved.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was conducted, evaluating the rates of union in fractures sustained in a combat environment over a 100-year period. Only those fractures sustained through a ballistic or blast mechanism were included. The review was in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Quality and bias assessment was also undertaken.
RESULTS
Thirty studies met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 3232 fractures described across 15 different conflicts from the period 1919-2019. Male subjects made up 96% of cases, and tibial fractures predominated (39%). The lowest fracture union rate observed in a series was 50%. Linear regression analysis demonstrated that increasing years had no statistically significant impact on union rate.
CONCLUSIONS
Failure to improve fracture union rates is likely a result of numerous factors, including greater use of blast weaponry and better survivability of casualties. Finding novel strategies to promote fracture healing is a key defence research priority in order to improve the rates of fractures sustained in a combat environment.
Topics: Blast Injuries; Fracture Healing; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Warfare; Wounds, Gunshot
PubMed: 32217686
DOI: 10.1136/bmjmilitary-2019-001375 -
Journal of Special Operations Medicine... 2020There is growing concern that military breaching and training and firing artillery and mortars, grenades, and shoulder-fired weapons may have some type of cumulative...
There is growing concern that military breaching and training and firing artillery and mortars, grenades, and shoulder-fired weapons may have some type of cumulative deleterious effects. There are anecdotal reports of those with repetitive exposure to low-level blast complaining of various symptoms, as well as increasing empirical evidence. The purpose of this report is to provide a systematic review of the literature on repetitive lowlevel blast as it pertains to military and police training protocols. An extensive literature search was conducted, resulting in detailed review of 18 studies. Results suggest few consistent findings, likely due to the heterogeneity of methods, high risk of bias, and lack of reliance on objective blast-exposure data. Adverse effects, when present, dissipated over time. All studies that used blast gauges found significant associations, though only a subset actually reported using the blast-gauge data (to correlate objective exposure with outcomes). When comparing studies within an outcome domain (e.g., cognitive), findings were largely inconsistent. Research with larger sample sizes, followed longitudinally, is needed.
Topics: Blast Injuries; Explosions; Humans; Military Personnel; Police
PubMed: 32203612
DOI: 10.55460/3AC6-AX9I -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2019The therapeutic role of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains controversial.
BACKGROUND
The therapeutic role of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains controversial.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials investigating the use of NMBA in ARDS patients from inception to July 2019. Relative risk (RR) was calculated for the incidence of barotrauma and mortality using the random-effect or fixed-effect model according to heterogeneity analysis.
RESULTS
Data were combined from five randomized controlled trials that included 1,461 patients (724 in the NMBA group and 737 in the control group). Pooled analysis showed that NMBA infusion did not reduce 28-day mortality (RR = 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 1.17, =0.180, I-squared = 62.8%), but was associated with lower intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.88, = 0.009, I-squared = 9.2%). In addition, the incidence of barotrauma was significantly lower in patients treated with NMBA (RR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.84, = 0.007, I-squared = 0). However, infusion of NMBA might increase the risk of ICU-acquired weakness (RR = 1.34, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.84, = 0.066, I-squared = 0).
CONCLUSION
Infusion of NMBA could reduce ICU mortality and the incidence of barotrauma. The risk of ICU-acquired weakness was higher in moderate-to-severe ARDS patients treated with NMBA. The real effects of NMBA need to be further evaluated and confirmed by a study with a stricter design.
PubMed: 32063852
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2019.01637 -
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