-
Anasthesiologie, Intensivmedizin,... Oct 2015Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT), i. e. breathing pure oxygen at elevated ambient pressure, remains the gold standard of care in treating air or gas embolism and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT), i. e. breathing pure oxygen at elevated ambient pressure, remains the gold standard of care in treating air or gas embolism and decompression illness. Guidelines are less clear on the value of HBOT in acute management of carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning or clostridial necrosis. To evaluate the evidence of clinical efficacy of HBOT we performed a systematic literature review. Part 1 assesses acute indications such as air or gas embolism, decompression sickness, CO-poisoning, clostridialmyonecrosis, necrotizing problem wounds, acute traumatic wounds and arterial retinal occlusion. Part 2 discusses further uses of HBOT as adjuvant treatment and highlights problems in assessing the value of HBOT using evidence-based medicine criteria.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Decompression Sickness; Diving; Emergency Medical Services; Evidence-Based Medicine; Germany; Humans; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Sports Medicine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26510108
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-107111 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Acute coronary syndrome (ACS), includes acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina, is common and may prove fatal. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) will improve... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute coronary syndrome (ACS), includes acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina, is common and may prove fatal. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) will improve oxygen supply to the threatened heart and may reduce the volume of heart muscle that perishes. The addition of HBOT to standard treatment may reduce death rate and other major adverse outcomes.This an update of a review previously published in May 2004 and June 2010.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review was to assess the evidence for the effects of adjunctive HBOT in the treatment of ACS. We compared treatment regimens including adjunctive HBOT against similar regimens excluding HBOT. Where regimens differed significantly between studies this is clearly stated and the implications discussed. All comparisons were made using an intention to treat analysis where this was possible. Efficacy was estimated from randomised trial comparisons but no attempt was made to evaluate the likely effectiveness that might be achieved in routine clinical practice. Specifically, we addressed:Does the adjunctive administration of HBOT to people with acute coronary syndrome (unstable angina or infarction) result in a reduction in the risk of death?Does the adjunctive administration of HBOT to people with acute coronary syndrome result in a reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), that is: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization by operative or percutaneous intervention?Is the administration of HBOT safe in both the short and long term?
SEARCH METHODS
We updated the search of the following sources in September 2014, but found no additional relevant citations since the previous search in June 2010 (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and DORCTHIM. Relevant journals were handsearched and researchers in the field contacted. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised studies comparing the effect on ACS of regimens that include HBOT with those that exclude HBOT.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three authors independently evaluated the quality of trials using the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook and extracted data from included trials. Binary outcomes were analysed using risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes using the mean difference (MD) and both are presented with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
No new trials were located in our most recent search in September 2014. Six trials with 665 participants contributed to this review. These trials were small and subject to potential bias. Only two reported randomisation procedures in detail and in only one trial was allocation concealed. While only modest numbers of participants were lost to follow-up, in general there is little information on the longer-term outcome for participants. Patients with acute coronary syndrome allocated to HBOT were associated with a reduction in the risk of death by around 42% (RR: 0.58, (95% CI 0.36 to 0.92), 5 trials, 614 participants; low quality evidence).In general, HBOT was well-tolerated. No patients were reported as suffering neurological oxygen toxicity and only a single patient was reported to have significant barotrauma to the tympanic membrane. One trial suggested a significant incidence of claustrophobia in single occupancy chambers of 15% (RR of claustrophobia with HBOT 31.6, 95% CI 1.92 to 521).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For people with ACS, there is some evidence from small trials to suggest that HBOT is associated with a reduction in the risk of death, the volume of damaged muscle, the risk of MACE and time to relief from ischaemic pain. In view of the modest number of patients, methodological shortcomings and poor reporting, this result should be interpreted cautiously, and an appropriately powered trial of high methodological rigour is justified to define those patients (if any) who can be expected to derive most benefit from HBOT. The routine application of HBOT to these patients cannot be justified from this review.
Topics: Acute Coronary Syndrome; Angina, Unstable; Humans; Hyperbaric Oxygenation; Myocardial Infarction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26202854
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004818.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2015Acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) account for one-quarter of cases of acute respiratory failure in intensive care units (ICUs). A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) account for one-quarter of cases of acute respiratory failure in intensive care units (ICUs). A third to half of patients will die in the ICU, in hospital or during follow-up. Mechanical ventilation of people with ALI/ARDS allows time for the lungs to heal, but ventilation is invasive and can result in lung injury. It is uncertain whether ventilator-related injury would be reduced if pressure delivered by the ventilator with each breath is controlled, or whether the volume of air delivered by each breath is limited.
OBJECTIVES
To compare pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) versus volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) in adults with ALI/ARDS to determine whether PCV reduces in-hospital mortality and morbidity in intubated and ventilated adults.
SEARCH METHODS
In October 2014, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Isssue 9), MEDLINE (1950 to 1 October 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 1 October 2014), the Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1994 to 1 October 2014) and Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) at the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (1990 to 1 October 2014), as well as regional databases, clinical trials registries, conference proceedings and reference lists.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (irrespective of language or publication status) of adults with a diagnosis of acute respiratory failure or acute on chronic respiratory failure and fulfilling the criteria for ALI/ARDS as defined by the American-European Consensus Conference who were admitted to an ICU for invasive mechanical ventilation, comparing pressure-controlled or pressure-controlled inverse-ratio ventilation, or an equivalent pressure-controlled mode (PCV), versus volume-controlled ventilation, or an equivalent volume-controlled mode (VCV).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened and selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We sought clarification from trial authors when needed. We pooled risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model. We assessed overall evidence quality using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs that randomly assigned a total of 1089 participants recruited from 43 ICUs in Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Spain and the USA. Risk of bias of the included studies was low. Only data for mortality and barotrauma could be combined in the meta-analysis. We downgraded the quality of evidence for the three mortality outcomes on the basis of serious imprecision around the effect estimates. For mortality in hospital, the RR with PCV compared with VCV was 0.83 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.02; three trials, 1089 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and for mortality in the ICU, the RR with PCV compared with VCV was 0.84 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; two trials, 1062 participants; moderate-quality evidence). One study provided no evidence of clear benefit with the ventilatory mode for mortality at 28 days (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06; 983 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The difference in effect on barotrauma between PCV and VCV was uncertain as the result of imprecision and different co-interventions used in the studies (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.77; two trials, 1062 participants; low-quality evidence). Data from one trial with 983 participants for the mean duration of ventilation, and from another trial with 78 participants for the mean number of extrapulmonary organ failures that developed with PCV or VCV, were skewed. None of the trials reported on infection during ventilation or quality of life after discharge.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently available data from RCTs are insufficient to confirm or refute whether pressure-controlled or volume-controlled ventilation offers any advantage for people with acute respiratory failure due to acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome. More studies including a larger number of people given PCV and VCV may provide reliable evidence on which more firm conclusions can be based.
Topics: Acute Lung Injury; Critical Care; Female; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pressure; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; Respiratory Insufficiency; Selection Bias
PubMed: 25586462
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008807.pub2 -
Neuropsychology Review Dec 2014Throughout their careers, many soldiers experience repeated blasts exposures from improvised explosive devices, which often involve head injury. Consequentially,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Throughout their careers, many soldiers experience repeated blasts exposures from improvised explosive devices, which often involve head injury. Consequentially, blast-related mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) has become prevalent in modern conflicts, often occuring co-morbidly with psychiatric illness (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD]). In turn, a growing body of research has begun to explore the cognitive and psychiatric sequelae of blast-related mTBI. The current meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the chronic effects of blast-related mTBI on cognitive performance. A systematic review identified 9 studies reporting 12 samples meeting eligibility criteria. A Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis was conducted with cognitive construct and PTSD symptoms explored as moderators. The overall posterior mean effect size and Highest Density Interval (HDI) came to d = -0.12 [-0.21, -0.04], with executive function (-0.16 [-0.31, 0.00]), verbal delayed memory (-0.19 [-0.44, 0.06]) and processing speed (-0.11 [-0.26, 0.01]) presenting as the most sensitive cognitive domains to blast-related mTBI. When dividing executive function into diverse sub-constructs (i.e., working memory, inhibition, set-shifting), set-shifting presented the largest effect size (-0.33 [-0.55, -0.05]). PTSD symptoms did not predict cognitive effects sizes, β PTSD = -0.02 [-0.23, 0.20]. The results indicate a subtle, but chronic cognitive impairment following mTBI, especially in set-shifting, a relevant aspect of executive attention. These findings are consistent with past meta-analyses on multiple mTBI and correspond with past neuroimaging research on the cognitive correlates of white matter damage common in mTBI. However, all studies had cross-sectional designs, which resulted in universally low quality ratings and limited the conclusions inferable from this meta-analysis.
Topics: Adult; Bayes Theorem; Blast Injuries; Cognition Disorders; Combat Disorders; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Military Personnel; Post-Concussion Syndrome
PubMed: 25253505
DOI: 10.1007/s11065-014-9271-8 -
Intensive Care Medicine Sep 2014To assess the effects of alveolar recruitment maneuvers (ARMs) on clinical outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To assess the effects of alveolar recruitment maneuvers (ARMs) on clinical outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
METHODS
We conducted a search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science (from inception to July 2014) databases for all (i.e. no language restriction) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of ARMs versus no ARMs in adults with ARDS. Four teams of two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of the studies identified during the search and appraised the risk of bias and extracted data from those which were assessed as meeting the inclusion criteria. Data were pooled using the random-effects model. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to establish monitoring boundaries to limit global type I error due to repetitive testing for our primary outcome (in-hospital mortality). The GRADE system was used to rate the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
Our database search identified ten RCTs (1,594 patients, 612 events) which satisfied the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis assessing the effect of ARMs on in-hospital mortality showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.84 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.74-0.95; I(2) = 0 %], although the quality of evidence was considered to be low due to the risk of bias in the included trials and the indirectness of the evidence--that is, ARMs were usually conducted together with other ventilatory interventions which may affect the outcome of interest. There were no differences in the rates of barotrauma (RR 1.11; 95 % CI 0.78-1.57; I(2) = 0 %) or need for rescue therapies (RR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.41-1.40; I(2) = 56 %). Most trials found no difference between groups in terms of duration of mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital. The TSA showed that the available evidence for the effect of ARMs on in-hospital mortality is precise in the case of a type I error of 5 %, but it is not precise with a type I error of 1 %.
CONCLUSIONS
Although ARMs may decrease the mortality of patients with ARDS without increasing the risk for major adverse events, current evidence is not definitive. Large-scale ongoing trials addressing this question may provide data better applicable to clinical practice.
Topics: Hospital Mortality; Humans; Pulmonary Alveoli; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; Respiratory Therapy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25097070
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-014-3413-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2014General anaesthesia causes atelectasis, which can lead to impaired respiratory function. Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is a mechanical manoeuvre that increases... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
General anaesthesia causes atelectasis, which can lead to impaired respiratory function. Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is a mechanical manoeuvre that increases functional residual capacity (FRC) and prevents collapse of the airways, thereby reducing atelectasis. It is not known whether intraoperative PEEP alters the risks of postoperative mortality and pulmonary complications. This review was originally published in 2010 and was updated in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of intraoperative PEEP in terms of postoperative mortality and pulmonary outcomes in all adult surgical patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2013, Issue 10, part of The Cochrane Library, as well as MEDLINE (via Ovid) (1966 to October 2013), EMBASE (via Ovid) (1980 to October 2013), CINAHL (via EBSCOhost) (1982 to October 2013), ISI Web of Science (1945 to October 2013) and LILACS (via BIREME interface) (1982 to October 2010). The original search was performed in January 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of PEEP versus no PEEP during general anaesthesia on postoperative mortality and postoperative respiratory complications in adults, 16 years of age and older.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected papers, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors to ask for additional information, when necessary. We calculated the number of additional participants needed (information size) to make reliable conclusions.
MAIN RESULTS
This updated review includes two new randomized trials. In total, 10 randomized trials with 432 participants and four comparisons are included in this review. One trial had a low risk of bias. No differences were demonstrated in mortality, with risk ratio (RR) of 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 4.59; P value 0.97; 268 participants, six trials, very low quality of evidence (grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE)), and in pneumonia, with RR of 0.40 (95% CI 0.11 to 1.39; P value 0.15; 120 participants, three trials, very low quality of evidence (GRADE)). Statistically significant results included the following: The PEEP group had higher arterial oxygen pressure (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) on day one postoperatively, with a mean difference of 22.98 (95% CI 4.40 to 41.55; P value 0.02; 80 participants, two trials, very low quality of evidence (GRADE)), and postoperative atelectasis (defined as an area of collapsed lung, quantified by computerized tomography scan) was less in the PEEP group (standard mean difference -1.2, 95% CI -1.78 to -0.79; P value 0.00001; 88 participants, two trials, very low quality of evidence (GRADE)). No adverse events were reported in the three trials that adequately measured these outcomes (barotrauma and cardiac complications). Using information size calculations, we estimated that a further 21,200 participants would have to be randomly assigned to allow a reliable conclusion about PEEP and mortality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence is currently insufficient to permit conclusions about whether intraoperative PEEP alters risks of postoperative mortality and respiratory complications among undifferentiated surgical patients.
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia, General; Humans; Pneumonia; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Postoperative Complications; Pulmonary Atelectasis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Insufficiency
PubMed: 24919591
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007922.pub3 -
Injury Jul 2014The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) coalition forces remain heavily committed on combat operations overseas. Understanding the prevalence and characteristics... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) coalition forces remain heavily committed on combat operations overseas. Understanding the prevalence and characteristics of battlefield injury of coalition partners is vital to combat casualty care performance improvement. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of battle casualties from NATO coalition partners in Iraq and Afghanistan. The primary outcome was mechanism of injury and the secondary outcome anatomical distribution of wounds.
METHODS
This systematic review was performed based on all cohort studies concerning prevalence and characteristics of battlefield injury of coalition forces from Iraq and Afghanistan up to December 20th 2013. Studies were rated on the level of evidence provided according to criteria by the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine in Oxford. The methodological quality of observational comparative studies was assessed by the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
Eight published articles, encompassing a total of n=19,750 battle casualties, were systematically analyzed to achieve a summated outcome. There was heterogeneity among the included studies and there were major differences in inclusion and exclusion criteria regarding the target population among the included trials, introducing bias. The overall distribution in mechanism of injury was 18% gunshot wounds, 72% explosions and other 10%. The overall anatomical distribution of wounds was head and neck 31%, truncal 27%, extremity 39% and other 3%.
CONCLUSIONS
The mechanism of injury and anatomical distribution of wounds observed in the published articles by NATO coalition partners regarding Iraq and Afghanistan differ from previous campaigns. There was a significant increase in the use of explosive mechanisms and a significant increase in the head and neck region compared with previous wars.
Topics: Afghan Campaign 2001-; Blast Injuries; Humans; Injury Severity Score; Iraq War, 2003-2011; Military Medicine; Military Personnel; Prevalence; Protective Devices; United States; Wounds, Gunshot
PubMed: 24878294
DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2014.02.012 -
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine Jun 2014Blast injury is a frequent cause of injury during armed conflicts, and the force of a blast can cause closed colorectal injury and perforation.1 After identification of... (Review)
Review
Blast injury is a frequent cause of injury during armed conflicts, and the force of a blast can cause closed colorectal injury and perforation.1 After identification of a blast-related colorectal injury, the surgical options are primary repair or fecal diversion with the option for secondary repair. This structured review was conducted to determine which patients could be treated with primary repair (PR) or with fecal diversion. The review method followed the Prisma Statement method for medical systematic review. All data from the relevant articles were collected in a single database. Articles took into account wars in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan from January 1993 through November 2012. The review was limited due to lack of reported data, hence qualitative analysis was the main review method. The review showed that for patients who do not have associated intra-abdominal injuries (diaphragm, stomach, pancreas, spleen, or kidney) or hemodynamic instability, PR did not result in an increase of complications or mortality.
Topics: Abdominal Injuries; Adult; Afghan Campaign 2001-; Afghanistan; Blast Injuries; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Colon; Colostomy; Female; Humans; Iraq; Iraq War, 2003-2011; Male; Military Personnel
PubMed: 24870213
DOI: 10.1017/S1049023X14000508 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2013Trauma is the fifth leading cause of death worldwide, and in people younger than 40 years of age, it is the leading cause of death. During the resuscitation of trauma... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Trauma is the fifth leading cause of death worldwide, and in people younger than 40 years of age, it is the leading cause of death. During the resuscitation of trauma patients at the emergency department, there are two different commonly used diagnostic strategies. Conventionally, there is the use of physical examination and conventional diagnostic imaging, potentially followed by selective use of computed tomography (CT). Alternatively, there is the use of physical examination and conventional diagnostics, followed by a routine (instead of selective) use of thoracoabdominal CT. It is currently unknown which of the two strategies is the better diagnostic strategy for patients with blunt high-energy trauma.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of routine thoracoabdominal CT compared with selective thoracoabdominal CT on mortality in blunt high-energy trauma patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 4, 2013); MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP) and CINAHL for all published randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We did not restrict the searches by language, date or publication status. We conducted the search on the 9 May 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs of trauma resuscitation algorithms using routine thoracoabdominal CT versus algorithms using selective CT in this review. We included all blunt high-energy trauma patients (including blast or barotrauma).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently evaluated the search results.
MAIN RESULTS
The systematic search identified 481 references; after removal of duplicates, 396 remained. We found no RCTs comparing routine versus selective thoracoabdominal CT in blunt high-energy trauma patients. We excluded 381 studies based on the abstracts of the publications because of irrelevance to the review topic, and a further 15 studies after full-text evaluation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no RCTs of routine versus selective thoracoabdominal CT in patients with blunt high-energy trauma. Based on the lack of evidence from RCTs, it is not possible to say which approach is better in reducing deaths.
Topics: Abdominal Injuries; Humans; Thoracic Injuries; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Wounds, Nonpenetrating
PubMed: 24363034
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009743.pub2 -
Critical Care Medicine Feb 2014Inhaled anticoagulation regimens are increasingly being used to manage smoke inhalation-associated acute lung injury. We systematically reviewed published and... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Inhaled anticoagulation regimens are increasingly being used to manage smoke inhalation-associated acute lung injury. We systematically reviewed published and unpublished preclinical and clinical trial data to elucidate the effects of these regimens on lung injury severity, airway obstruction, ventilation, oxygenation, pulmonary infections, bleeding complications, and survival.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched to identify relevant published studies. Relevant unpublished studies were identified by searching the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, MINDCULL.com, Current Controlled Trials, and Google.
STUDY SELECTION
Inclusion criteria were any preclinical or clinical study in which 1) animals or subjects experienced smoke inhalation exposure, 2) they were treated with nebulized or aerosolized anticoagulation regimens, including heparin, heparinoids, antithrombins, or fibrinolytics (e.g., tissue plasminogen activator), 3) a control and/or sham group was described for preclinical studies, and 4) a concurrent or historical control group described for clinical studies. Exclusion criteria were 1) the absence of a group treated with a nebulized or aerosolized anticoagulation regimen, 2) the absence of a control or sham group, and 3) case reports.
DATA EXTRACTION
Ninety-nine potentially relevant references were identified. Twenty-seven references met inclusion criteria including 19 preclinical references reporting 18 studies and eight clinical references reporting five clinical studies.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A systematic review of the literature is provided. Both clinical and methodological diversity precluded combining these studies in a meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
The high mortality associated with smoke inhalation-associated acute lung injury results from airway damage, mucosal dysfunction, neutrophil infiltration, airway coagulopathy with cast formation, ventilation-perfusion mismatching with shunt, and barotrauma. Inhaled anticoagulation regimens in both preclinical and clinical studies improve survival and decrease morbidity without altering systemic markers of clotting and anticoagulation. In some preclinical and clinical studies, inhaled anticoagulants were associated with a favorable effect on survival. This approach appears sufficiently promising to merit a well-designed prospective study to validate its use in patients with severe smoke inhalation-associated acute lung injury requiring mechanical ventilation.
Topics: Acute Lung Injury; Administration, Inhalation; Anticoagulants; Humans; Smoke Inhalation Injury
PubMed: 24158173
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182a645e5