[Effect of different durations of prone ventilation on the efficacy of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a small Meta-analysis].

Juan He, Ying Liu, Lu Li, Jinfeng Yang, Xijing Zhang, Qimin Chen, Jiaoyangzi Liu, Feng Shen
{"title":"[Effect of different durations of prone ventilation on the efficacy of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a small Meta-analysis].","authors":"Juan He, Ying Liu, Lu Li, Jinfeng Yang, Xijing Zhang, Qimin Chen, Jiaoyangzi Liu, Feng Shen","doi":"10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20231108-00958","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically evaluate the effect of different durations of prone ventilation on the efficacy of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A computer search was conducted in databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and China Biomedical Literature Database for studies on prone ventilation for the treatment of adult patients with ARDS published from the establishment of the database to September 2023. Studies were categorized into ≤ 24 hours group and > 24 hours group based on the duration of prone ventilation. Outcome indicators included mortality, the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, incidence of pressure ulcers, and operation of tracheotomy. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted information, and evaluated the risk of bias of the included literature. The quality of the included literature was assessed using the NOS scale, and the effect of different durations of prone ventilation on the efficacy of ARDS was analyzed by Meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 517 patients from 4 papers were finally included, including 249 patients with prone ventilation duration ≤ 24 hours and 268 patients with prone ventilation duration > 24 hours. All 4 studies were cohort studies, and the overall inclusion of literature assessed for methodological quality indicated high study quality and low risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed that there were no significantly differences in mortality [relative risk (RR) = 1.02, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was 0.79 to 1.31, P = 0.88], the length of ICU stay [mean difference (MD) = -2.68, 95%CI was -5.30 to - 0.05, P = 0.05] between the prone ventilation duration ≤ 24 hours group and prone ventilation duration > 24 hours group. Compared with the prone ventilation duration ≤24 hours group, the incidence of pressure ulcers (RR = 0.76, 95%CI was 0.59 to 0.98, P = 0.04) and the operation of tracheotomy (RR = 0.71, 95%CI was 0.53 to 0.94, P = 0.02) were significantly increased in the prone ventilation duration > 24 hours group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The duration of prone ventilation had no significant effect on the mortality and the length of ICU stay in ARDS patients, but prone ventilation for > 24 hours increased the incidence of pressure ulcers and the operation of tracheotomy, which still needs to be further verified by a large number of studies due to the small number of included studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":24079,"journal":{"name":"Zhonghua wei zhong bing ji jiu yi xue","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zhonghua wei zhong bing ji jiu yi xue","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20231108-00958","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To systematically evaluate the effect of different durations of prone ventilation on the efficacy of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Methods: A computer search was conducted in databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and China Biomedical Literature Database for studies on prone ventilation for the treatment of adult patients with ARDS published from the establishment of the database to September 2023. Studies were categorized into ≤ 24 hours group and > 24 hours group based on the duration of prone ventilation. Outcome indicators included mortality, the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, incidence of pressure ulcers, and operation of tracheotomy. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted information, and evaluated the risk of bias of the included literature. The quality of the included literature was assessed using the NOS scale, and the effect of different durations of prone ventilation on the efficacy of ARDS was analyzed by Meta-analysis.

Results: A total of 517 patients from 4 papers were finally included, including 249 patients with prone ventilation duration ≤ 24 hours and 268 patients with prone ventilation duration > 24 hours. All 4 studies were cohort studies, and the overall inclusion of literature assessed for methodological quality indicated high study quality and low risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed that there were no significantly differences in mortality [relative risk (RR) = 1.02, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was 0.79 to 1.31, P = 0.88], the length of ICU stay [mean difference (MD) = -2.68, 95%CI was -5.30 to - 0.05, P = 0.05] between the prone ventilation duration ≤ 24 hours group and prone ventilation duration > 24 hours group. Compared with the prone ventilation duration ≤24 hours group, the incidence of pressure ulcers (RR = 0.76, 95%CI was 0.59 to 0.98, P = 0.04) and the operation of tracheotomy (RR = 0.71, 95%CI was 0.53 to 0.94, P = 0.02) were significantly increased in the prone ventilation duration > 24 hours group.

Conclusions: The duration of prone ventilation had no significant effect on the mortality and the length of ICU stay in ARDS patients, but prone ventilation for > 24 hours increased the incidence of pressure ulcers and the operation of tracheotomy, which still needs to be further verified by a large number of studies due to the small number of included studies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[不同持续时间的俯卧位通气对急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者疗效的影响:小型 Meta 分析]。
目的系统评估不同持续时间的俯卧位通气对急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者疗效的影响:在PubMed、Cochrane Library、Embase、CNKI、万方数据库、VIP数据库、中国生物医学文献数据库等数据库中检索自数据库建立至2023年9月期间发表的关于俯卧位通气治疗ARDS成人患者的研究。根据俯卧位通气时间的长短,将研究分为≤24小时组和>24小时组。结果指标包括死亡率、重症监护室(ICU)住院时间、压疮发生率和气管切开手术。两名研究人员独立筛选文献、提取信息并评估了纳入文献的偏倚风险。采用 NOS 量表评估了纳入文献的质量,并通过 Meta 分析法分析了不同持续时间的俯卧位通气对 ARDS 疗效的影响:最终纳入了4篇论文中的517例患者,其中249例患者的俯卧位通气时间≤24小时,268例患者的俯卧位通气时间大于24小时。4 项研究均为队列研究,纳入文献的总体方法学质量评估显示研究质量高,偏倚风险低。Meta 分析显示,俯卧位通气持续时间≤24 小时组与俯卧位通气持续时间>24 小时组在死亡率[相对风险(RR)= 1.02,95% 置信区间(95%CI)为 0.79 至 1.31,P = 0.88]、ICU 留观时间[平均差(MD)= -2.68,95%CI 为 -5.30 至 -0.05,P = 0.05]方面无明显差异。与俯卧位通气时间≤24小时组相比,俯卧位通气时间>24小时组的压疮发生率(RR=0.76,95%CI为0.59至0.98,P=0.04)和气管切开手术(RR=0.71,95%CI为0.53至0.94,P=0.02)显著增加:结论:俯卧位通气时间的长短对ARDS患者的死亡率和ICU住院时间没有明显影响,但俯卧位通气时间大于24小时会增加压疮的发生率和气管切开手术,由于纳入的研究较少,这一点仍需大量研究进一步验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Zhonghua wei zhong bing ji jiu yi xue
Zhonghua wei zhong bing ji jiu yi xue Medicine-Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
期刊最新文献
[Annexin A1 activates the G protein-coupled formyl peptide receptor type 2-dependent endothelial nitric oxide synthase pathway to alleviate sepsis associated acute lung injury]. [Application of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation combined with renal replacement therapy in the treatment of war traumatic sepsis]. [Clinical characteristics and risk factors analysis of dengue fever incidence in Xishuangbanna, Yunnan Province in 2023]. [Design and application of an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-specific line fixation device]. [Early diagnostic and prognosis prediction of circ_0054633 for acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome in children with severe pneumonia].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1