对使用机械通气的急性呼吸衰竭成人采用有限驱动压力通气和低潮气量策略的比较:随机对照试验。

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/17534666241249152
Surat Tongyoo, Tanuwong Viarasilpa, Phitphiboon Deawtrakulchai, Santi Subpinyo, Chaiyawat Suppasilp, Chairat Permpikul
{"title":"对使用机械通气的急性呼吸衰竭成人采用有限驱动压力通气和低潮气量策略的比较:随机对照试验。","authors":"Surat Tongyoo, Tanuwong Viarasilpa, Phitphiboon Deawtrakulchai, Santi Subpinyo, Chaiyawat Suppasilp, Chairat Permpikul","doi":"10.1177/17534666241249152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) presents a grave risk to acute respiratory failure patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. Low tidal volume (LTV) ventilation has been advocated as a protective strategy against VILI. However, the effectiveness of limited driving pressure (plateau pressure minus positive end-expiratory pressure) remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study evaluated the efficacy of LTV against limited driving pressure in preventing VILI in adults with respiratory failure.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A single-centre, prospective, open-labelled, randomized controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was executed in medical intensive care units at Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. We enrolled acute respiratory failure patients undergoing intubation and mechanical ventilation. They were randomized in a 1:1 allocation to limited driving pressure (LDP; ⩽15 cmH<sub>2</sub>O) or LTV (⩽8 mL/kg of predicted body weight). The primary outcome was the acute lung injury (ALI) score 7 days post-enrolment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From July 2019 to December 2020, 126 patients participated, with 63 each in the LDP and LTV groups. The cohorts had the mean (standard deviation) ages of 60.5 (17.6) and 60.9 (17.9) years, respectively, and they exhibited comparable baseline characteristics. The primary reasons for intubation were acute hypoxic respiratory failure (LDP 49.2%, LTV 63.5%) and shock-related respiratory failure (LDP 39.7%, LTV 30.2%). No significant difference emerged in the primary outcome: the median (interquartile range) ALI scores for LDP and LTV were 1.75 (1.00-2.67) and 1.75 (1.25-2.25), respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.713). Twenty-eight-day mortality rates were comparable: LDP 34.9% (22/63), LTV 31.7% (20/63), relative risk (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.57, <i>p</i> = 0.705. Incidences of newly developed acute respiratory distress syndrome also aligned: LDP 14.3% (9/63), LTV 20.6% (13/63), RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.55-1.22, <i>p</i> = 0.348.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In adults with acute respiratory failure, the efficacy of LDP and LTV in averting lung injury 7 days post-mechanical ventilation was indistinguishable.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>The study was registered with the ClinicalTrials.gov database (identification number NCT04035915).</p>","PeriodicalId":22884,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease","volume":"18 ","pages":"17534666241249152"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11088295/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of limited driving pressure ventilation and low tidal volume strategies in adults with acute respiratory failure on mechanical ventilation: a randomized controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Surat Tongyoo, Tanuwong Viarasilpa, Phitphiboon Deawtrakulchai, Santi Subpinyo, Chaiyawat Suppasilp, Chairat Permpikul\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17534666241249152\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) presents a grave risk to acute respiratory failure patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. Low tidal volume (LTV) ventilation has been advocated as a protective strategy against VILI. However, the effectiveness of limited driving pressure (plateau pressure minus positive end-expiratory pressure) remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study evaluated the efficacy of LTV against limited driving pressure in preventing VILI in adults with respiratory failure.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A single-centre, prospective, open-labelled, randomized controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was executed in medical intensive care units at Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. We enrolled acute respiratory failure patients undergoing intubation and mechanical ventilation. They were randomized in a 1:1 allocation to limited driving pressure (LDP; ⩽15 cmH<sub>2</sub>O) or LTV (⩽8 mL/kg of predicted body weight). The primary outcome was the acute lung injury (ALI) score 7 days post-enrolment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From July 2019 to December 2020, 126 patients participated, with 63 each in the LDP and LTV groups. The cohorts had the mean (standard deviation) ages of 60.5 (17.6) and 60.9 (17.9) years, respectively, and they exhibited comparable baseline characteristics. The primary reasons for intubation were acute hypoxic respiratory failure (LDP 49.2%, LTV 63.5%) and shock-related respiratory failure (LDP 39.7%, LTV 30.2%). No significant difference emerged in the primary outcome: the median (interquartile range) ALI scores for LDP and LTV were 1.75 (1.00-2.67) and 1.75 (1.25-2.25), respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.713). Twenty-eight-day mortality rates were comparable: LDP 34.9% (22/63), LTV 31.7% (20/63), relative risk (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.57, <i>p</i> = 0.705. Incidences of newly developed acute respiratory distress syndrome also aligned: LDP 14.3% (9/63), LTV 20.6% (13/63), RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.55-1.22, <i>p</i> = 0.348.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In adults with acute respiratory failure, the efficacy of LDP and LTV in averting lung injury 7 days post-mechanical ventilation was indistinguishable.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>The study was registered with the ClinicalTrials.gov database (identification number NCT04035915).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22884,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"17534666241249152\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11088295/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17534666241249152\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17534666241249152","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:呼吸机诱发的肺损伤(VILI)对接受机械通气的急性呼吸衰竭患者构成严重威胁。低潮气量(LTV)通气被认为是防止 VILI 的一种保护策略。然而,有限驱动压力(高原压减去呼气末正压)的有效性仍不明确:本研究评估了低通气压力与有限驱动压力在预防成人呼吸衰竭患者 VILI 方面的效果:设计:单中心、前瞻性、开放标签、随机对照试验:本研究在泰国曼谷玛希隆大学 Siriraj 医院的重症医学科进行。我们招募了接受插管和机械通气的急性呼吸衰竭患者。他们按 1:1 随机分配到有限驱动压力(LDP;⩽15 cmH2O)或 LTV(⩽8 mL/kg(预测体重))。主要结果是入组后 7 天的急性肺损伤(ALI)评分:从 2019 年 7 月到 2020 年 12 月,共有 126 名患者参与,其中 LDP 组和 LTV 组各有 63 人。两组患者的平均年龄(标准差)分别为 60.5(17.6)岁和 60.9(17.9)岁,基线特征相当。插管的主要原因是急性缺氧性呼吸衰竭(LDP 49.2%,LTV 63.5%)和休克相关性呼吸衰竭(LDP 39.7%,LTV 30.2%)。主要结果无明显差异:LDP 和 LTV 的 ALI 评分中位数(四分位数间距)分别为 1.75(1.00-2.67)和 1.75(1.25-2.25)(P = 0.713)。二十八天死亡率相当:LDP为34.9%(22/63),LTV为31.7%(20/63),相对风险(RR)为1.08,95%置信区间(CI)为0.74-1.57,P = 0.705。新发急性呼吸窘迫综合征的发生率也一致:LDP为14.3%(9/63),LTV为20.6%(13/63),RR为0.81,95% CI为0.55-1.22,P = 0.348:结论:对于急性呼吸衰竭的成人患者,LDP和LTV在机械通气后7天避免肺损伤方面的疗效不分伯仲:该研究已在ClinicalTrials.gov数据库注册(识别号为NCT04035915)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of limited driving pressure ventilation and low tidal volume strategies in adults with acute respiratory failure on mechanical ventilation: a randomized controlled trial.

Background: Ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) presents a grave risk to acute respiratory failure patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. Low tidal volume (LTV) ventilation has been advocated as a protective strategy against VILI. However, the effectiveness of limited driving pressure (plateau pressure minus positive end-expiratory pressure) remains unclear.

Objectives: This study evaluated the efficacy of LTV against limited driving pressure in preventing VILI in adults with respiratory failure.

Design: A single-centre, prospective, open-labelled, randomized controlled trial.

Methods: This study was executed in medical intensive care units at Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. We enrolled acute respiratory failure patients undergoing intubation and mechanical ventilation. They were randomized in a 1:1 allocation to limited driving pressure (LDP; ⩽15 cmH2O) or LTV (⩽8 mL/kg of predicted body weight). The primary outcome was the acute lung injury (ALI) score 7 days post-enrolment.

Results: From July 2019 to December 2020, 126 patients participated, with 63 each in the LDP and LTV groups. The cohorts had the mean (standard deviation) ages of 60.5 (17.6) and 60.9 (17.9) years, respectively, and they exhibited comparable baseline characteristics. The primary reasons for intubation were acute hypoxic respiratory failure (LDP 49.2%, LTV 63.5%) and shock-related respiratory failure (LDP 39.7%, LTV 30.2%). No significant difference emerged in the primary outcome: the median (interquartile range) ALI scores for LDP and LTV were 1.75 (1.00-2.67) and 1.75 (1.25-2.25), respectively (p = 0.713). Twenty-eight-day mortality rates were comparable: LDP 34.9% (22/63), LTV 31.7% (20/63), relative risk (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.57, p = 0.705. Incidences of newly developed acute respiratory distress syndrome also aligned: LDP 14.3% (9/63), LTV 20.6% (13/63), RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.55-1.22, p = 0.348.

Conclusions: In adults with acute respiratory failure, the efficacy of LDP and LTV in averting lung injury 7 days post-mechanical ventilation was indistinguishable.

Clinical trial registration: The study was registered with the ClinicalTrials.gov database (identification number NCT04035915).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
57
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease delivers the highest quality peer-reviewed articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies across all areas of respiratory disease.
期刊最新文献
Prone positioning during CPAP therapy in SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: a concise clinical review. Liver injury due to endothelin receptor antagonists: a real-world study based on post-marketing drug monitoring data. Referral rates and barriers to lung transplantation based on pulmonary function criteria in interstitial lung diseases: a retrospective cohort study. A comparison between a gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire-based algorithm and multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux-induced chronic cough. Post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index: a new parameter for the identification of non-acid gastroesophageal reflux-related chronic cough.
×
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