Utility and safety of draining pleural effusions in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Pleural effusions are frequently drained in mechanically ventilated patients but the benefits and risks of this procedure are not well established.Methods
We performed a literature search of multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, HEALTHSTAR, CINAHL) up to April 2010 to identify studies reporting clinical or physiological outcomes of mechanically ventilated critically ill patients who underwent drainage of pleural effusions. Studies were adjudicated for inclusion independently and in duplicate. Data on duration of ventilation and other clinical outcomes, oxygenation and lung mechanics, and adverse events were abstracted in duplicate independently.Results
Nineteen observational studies (N = 1,124) met selection criteria. The mean PaO2:FiO2 ratio improved by 18% (95% confidence interval (CI) 5% to 33%, I2 = 53.7%, five studies including 118 patients) after effusion drainage. Reported complication rates were low for pneumothorax (20 events in 14 studies including 965 patients; pooled mean 3.4%, 95% CI 1.7 to 6.5%, I2 = 52.5%) and hemothorax (4 events in 10 studies including 721 patients; pooled mean 1.6%, 95% CI 0.8 to 3.3%, I2 = 0%). The use of ultrasound guidance (either real-time or for site marking) was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of pneumothorax (OR = 0.32; 95% CI 0.08 to 1.19). Studies did not report duration of ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit or hospital, or mortality.Conclusions
Drainage of pleural effusions in mechanically ventilated patients appears to improve oxygenation and is safe. We found no data to either support or refute claims of beneficial effects on clinically important outcomes such as duration of ventilation or length of stay.
SUBMITTER: Goligher EC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3221976 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of oral decontamination on the incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia and mortality in mechanically ventilated adults. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, trials registers, reference lists, conference proceedings, and investigators in the specialty. REVIEW METHODS: Two independent reviewers screened studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. Eligible trials were randomised controlled trials enrolling mechanically ventilated adults that compared the effects of daily oral application of antibiotics or antiseptics with no prophylaxis. RESULTS: 11 trials totalling 3242 patients met the inclusion criteria. Among four trials with 1098 patients, oral application of antibiotics did not significantly reduce the incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia (relative risk 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.41 to 1.18). In seven trials with 2144 patients, however, oral application of antiseptics significantly reduced the incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia (0.56, 0.39 to 0.81). When the results of the 11 trials were pooled, rates of ventilator associated pneumonia were lower among patients receiving either method of oral decontamination (0.61, 0.45 to 0.82). Mortality was not influenced by prophylaxis with either antibiotics (0.94, 0.73 to 1.21) or antiseptics (0.96, 0.69 to 1.33) nor was duration of mechanical ventilation or stay in the intensive care unit. CONCLUSIONS: Oral decontamination of mechanically ventilated adults using antiseptics is associated with a lower risk of ventilator associated pneumonia. Neither antiseptic nor antibiotic oral decontamination reduced mortality or duration of mechanical ventilation or stay in the intensive care unit.
| S-EPMC1857782 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionNosocomial pneumonia is the most important infectious complication in patients admitted to intensive care units. Kinetic bed therapy may reduce the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients. The objective of this study was to investigate whether kinetic bed therapy reduces the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia and improves outcomes in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients.MethodsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and AMED for studies, as well as reviewed abstracts of conference proceedings, bibliographies of included studies and review articles and contacted the manufacturers of medical beds. Studies included were randomized or pseudo-randomized clinical trials of kinetic bed therapy compared to standard manual turning in critically ill mechanically ventilated adult patients. Two reviewers independently applied the study selection criteria and extracted data regarding study validity, type of bed used, intensity of kinetic therapy, and population under investigation. Outcomes assessed included the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia, mortality, duration of ventilation, and intensive care unit and hospital length of stay.ResultsFifteen prospective clinical trials were identified, which included a total of 1,169 participants. No trial met all the validity criteria. There was a significant reduction in the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia (pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.53), but no reduction in mortality (pooled OR 0.96, 95%CI 0.66 to 1.14), duration of mechanical ventilation (pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.14 days, 95%CI, -0.29 to 0.02), duration of intensive care unit stay (pooled SMD -0.064 days, 95% CI, -0.21 to 0.086) or duration of hospital stay (pooled SMD 0.05 days, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.27).ConclusionWhile kinetic bed therapy has been purported to reduce the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients, the overall body of evidence is insufficient to support this conclusion. There appears to be a reduction in the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia, but no effect on mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, or intensive care or hospital length of stay. Given the lack of consistent benefit and the poor methodological quality of the trials included in this analysis, definitive recommendations regarding the use of this therapy cannot be made at this time.
| S-EPMC1550950 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of systematic early mobilization in improving muscle strength and physical function in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients.MethodsWe conducted a two-stage systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library until January 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effects of early mobilization initiated within 7 days after ICU admission compared with late mobilization, standard early mobilization or no mobilization. Priority outcomes were Medical Research Council Sum Score (MRC-SS), incidence of ICU-acquired weakness (ICUAW), 6-min walk test (6MWT), proportion of patients reaching independence, time needed until walking, SF-36 Physical Function Domain Score (PFS) and SF-36 Physical Health Component Score (PCS). Meta-analysis was conducted where sufficient comparable evidence was available. We evaluated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.ResultsWe identified 12 eligible RCTs contributing data from 1304 participants. Two RCTs were categorized as comparing systematic early with late mobilization, nine with standard early mobilization and one with no mobilization. We found evidence for a benefit of systematic early mobilization compared to late mobilization for SF-36 PFS (MD 12.3; 95% CI 3.9-20.8) and PCS (MD 3.4; 95% CI 0.01-6.8), as well as on the proportion of patients reaching independence and the time needed to walking, but not for incidence of ICUAW (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.38-1.03) or MRC-SS. For systematic early compared to standard early mobilization, we found no statistically significant benefit on MRC-SS (MD 5.8; 95% CI - 1.4 to 13.0), incidence of ICUAW (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.63-1.27), SF-36 PFS (MD 8.1; 95% CI - 15.3 to 31.4) or PCS (MD - 2.4; 95% CI - 6.1 to 1.3) or other priority outcomes except for change in 6MWT from baseline. Generally, effects appeared stronger for systematic early compared to late mobilization than to standard early mobilization. We judged the certainty of evidence for all outcomes as very low to low.ConclusionThe evidence regarding a benefit of systematic early mobilization remained inconclusive. However, our findings indicate that the larger the difference in the timing between the intervention and the comparator, the more likely an RCT is to find a benefit for early mobilization.Study registrationPROSPERO (CRD42019122555).
| S-EPMC7789482 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOesophageal pressure (P oes) is used to approximate pleural pressure (P pl) and therefore to estimate transpulmonary pressure (P L). We aimed to compare oesophageal and regional pleural pressures and to calculate transpulmonary pressures in a prospective physiological study on lung transplant recipients during their stay in the intensive care unit of a tertiary university hospital.MethodsLung transplant recipients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and monitored by oesophageal manometry and dependent and nondependent pleural catheters were investigated during the post-operative period. We performed simultaneous short-time measurements and recordings of oesophageal manometry and pleural pressures. Expiratory and inspiratory P L were computed by subtracting regional P pl or P oes from airway pressure; inspiratory P L was also calculated with the elastance ratio method.Results16 patients were included. Among them, 14 were analysed. Oesophageal pressures correlated with dependent and nondependent pleural pressures during expiration (R2=0.71, p=0.005 and R2=0.77, p=0.001, respectively) and during inspiration (R2=0.66 for both, p=0.01 and p=0.014, respectively). P L values calculated using P oes were close to those obtained from the dependent pleural catheter but higher than those obtained from the nondependent pleural catheter both during expiration and inspiration.ConclusionsIn ventilated lung transplant recipients, oesophageal manometry is well correlated with pleural pressure. The absolute value of P oes is higher than P pl of nondependent lung regions and could therefore underestimate the highest level of lung stress in those at high risk of overinflation.
| S-EPMC7938048 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Emerging data suggest that early deep sedation may negatively impact clinical outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis defines and quantifies the impact of deep sedation within 48 hours of initiation of mechanical ventilation, as described in the world's literature. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital and ICU lengths of stay, mechanical ventilation duration, and delirium and tracheostomy frequency. DATA SOURCES:The following data sources were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews and Effects, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases, ClinicalTrials.gov, conference proceedings, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION:Randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies were included. DATA EXTRACTION:Two reviewers independently screened abstracts of identified studies for eligibility. DATA SYNTHESIS:Nine studies (n = 4,521 patients) published between 2012 and 2017 were included. A random effects meta-analytic model revealed that early light sedation was associated with lower mortality (9.2%) versus deep sedation (27.6%) (odds ratio, 0.34 [0.21-0.54]). Light sedation was associated with fewer mechanical ventilation (mean difference, -2.1; 95% CI, -3.6 to -0.5) and ICU days (mean difference, -3.0 (95% CI, -5.4 to -0.6). Delirium frequency was 28.7% in the light sedation group and 48.5% in the deep sedation group, odds ratio, 0.50 (0.22-1.16). CONCLUSIONS:Deep sedation in mechanically ventilated patients, as evaluated in a small number of qualifying heterogeneous randomized controlled trials and observational studies, was associated with increased mortality and lengths of stay. Interventions targeting early sedation depth assessment, starting in the emergency department and subsequent ICU admission, deserve further investigation and could improve outcome.
| S-EPMC5825247 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDynamic predictors of fluid responsiveness have shown good performance in mechanically ventilated patients at tidal volumes (Vt) > 8 mL kg-1. Nevertheless, most critically ill conditions demand lower Vt. We sought to evaluate the operative performance of several predictors of fluid responsiveness at Vt ≤ 8 mL kg-1 by using meta-regression and subgroup analyses.MethodsA sensitive search was conducted in the Embase and MEDLINE databases. We searched for studies prospectively assessing the operative performance of pulse pressure variation (PPV), stroke volume variation (SVV), end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT), passive leg raising (PLR), inferior vena cava respiratory variability (Δ-IVC), mini-fluid challenge (m-FC), and tidal volume challenge (VtC), to predict fluid responsiveness in adult patients mechanically ventilated at Vt ≤ 8 ml kg-1, without respiratory effort and arrhythmias, published between 1999 and 2020. Operative performance was assessed using hierarchical and bivariate analyses, while subgroup analysis was used to evaluate variations in their operative performance and sources of heterogeneity. A sensitivity analysis based on the methodological quality of the studies included (QUADAS-2) was also performed.ResultsA total of 33 studies involving 1,352 patients were included for analysis. Areas under the curve (AUC) values for predictors of fluid responsiveness were: for PPV = 0.82, Δ-IVC = 0.86, SVV = 0.90, m-FC = 0.84, PLR = 0.84, EEOT = 0.92, and VtC = 0.92. According to subgroup analyses, variations in methods to measure cardiac output and in turn, to classify patients as responders or non-responders significantly influence the performance of PPV and SVV (p < 0.05). Operative performance of PPV was also significantly affected by the compliance of the respiratory system (p = 0.05), while type of patient (p < 0.01) and thresholds used to determine responsiveness significantly affected the predictability of SVV (p = 0.05). Similarly, volume of fluids infused to determine variation in cardiac output, significantly affected the performance of SVV (p = 0.01) and PLR (p < 0.01). Sensitivity analysis showed no variations in operative performance of PPV (p = 0.39), SVV (p = 0.23) and EEOT (p = 0.15).ConclusionMost predictors of fluid responsiveness reliably predict the response of cardiac output to volume expansion in adult patients mechanically ventilated at tidal volumes ≤ 8 ml kg-1. Nevertheless, technical and clinical variables might clearly influence on their operative performance.
| S-EPMC7870741 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: A systematic review was conducted to investigate the effect of respiratory physiotherapy on mortality, quality of life, functional recovery, intensive care length of stay, duration of ventilation, oxygenation, secretion clearance, and pulmonary mechanics for invasively ventilated adults with pneumonia. Method: Five databases were searched for randomized trials published between January 1995 and November 2018. Study quality was assessed using a standardized Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool, and Review Manager software was used to pool the studies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the level of certainty of the evidence. Results: A total of 14 studies of moderate quality included 251 subjects with pneumonia. Eight studies were pooled for meta-analysis. Interventions that increased inspiratory volume appeared to benefit secretion clearance by nearly 2 grams (mean difference [MD] 1.97; 95% CI: 0.80, 3.14; very low GRADE evidence) and increase static lung compliance immediately after treatment by more than 5 millilitres/centimetre H20 (MD 5.40 mL/cm H2O; 95% CI: 2.37, 8.43; very low GRADE evidence) or by more than 6 millilitres/centimetre H2O after a 20- to 30-minute delay (MD 6.86 mL/cm H2O; 95% CI: 2.86, 10.86; very low GRADE evidence). No adverse events were found. Conclusions: Respiratory physiotherapy that increases tidal volume may benefit secretion clearance and lung compliance in invasively ventilated adults with pneumonia, but its impact on other outcomes, including mortality, length of stay, and other patient-centred outcomes, is unclear, and further research is required.
| S-EPMC8774958 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Kanglaite injection (KLTI) is a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) preparation with anti-tumor activity, which has been used to treat malignant tumors in China. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intrapleural infusion with KLTI in the treatment of malignant pleural effusion (MPE). Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of intrathoracic infusion with KLTI in the treatment of MPE were searched from the PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang and CBM databases. The primary outcome was objective remission rate (ORR). Secondary outcomes included quality of life (QOL) and incidence of adverse events (AEs). The Stata15.1 software and RevMan5.3 software were used to calculate risk ratios (RR) at 95% confidence intervals (CI) and conduct the meta-analysis. Results: This meta-analysis included 20 RCTs, involving 1,291 patients. The ORR of intrapleural infusion with KLTI + chemotherapy drugs in the treatment of MPE was higher than that of chemotherapy alone (RR) 1.23; 95%CI; 1.11-1.36, I 2 = 0%, z = 3.876, p = 0.000]. When KLTI is combined with cisplatin or KLTI 200 ml is used in every time, it is more advantageous to improve ORR. Moreover, compared with intrapleural infusion of chemotherapy drugs alone, KLTI combined with chemotherapy drugs significantly improved the QOL of patients with MPE (RR 1.28; 95%CI; 1.70-1.53, I 2 = 0%, z = 2.70, p = 0.007). In addition, the participation of KLTI reduced the gastrointestinal reaction (RR 0.79; 95% CI; 0.66-0.96; I 2 = 0%, z = 2.37, p = 0.018) and renal damage (RR 0.468; 95% CI; 0.23-0.945, I 2 = 0%, z = 2.11, p = 0.035) caused by chemotherapy drugs, but did not increase other adverse reactions (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The efficacy and safety of traditional chemotherapy drugs plus KLTI was superior to traditional chemotherapy drugs alone via intrapleural injection in controlling MPE, which suggested that KLTI can be used to treat MPE. However, a more rigorous RCT should be designed and completed before it is widely recommended.
| S-EPMC8595202 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: Dexmedetomidine has been shown to improve clinical outcomes in critically ill patients. However, its effect on septic patients remains controversial. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the effect of dexmedetomidine as a sedative agent for mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library from inception through May 2021 for randomized controlled trials that enrolled mechanically ventilated, adult septic patients comparing dexmedetomidine with other sedatives or placebo. Results: A total of nine studies involving 1,134 patients were included in our meta-analysis. The overall mortality (RR 0.97, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.13, P = 0.67, I2 = 25%), length of intensive care unit stay (MD -1.12, 95%CI -2.89 to 0.64, P = 0.21, I2 = 71%), incidence of delirium (RR 0.95, 95%CI 0.72 to 1.25, P = 0.70, I2 = 0%), and delirium free days (MD 1.76, 95%CI -0.94 to 4.47, P = 0.20, I2 = 80%) were not significantly different between dexmedetomidine and other sedative agents. Alternatively, the use of dexmedetomidine was associated with a significant reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.53, 95%CI -0.85 to -0.21, P = 0.001, I2 = 0%) and inflammatory response (TNF-α: MD -5.27, 95%CI -7.99 to -2.54, P<0.001, I2 = 0%; IL-1β: MD -1.25, 95%CI -1.91 to -0.59, P<0.001, I2 = 0%). Conclusions: For patients with sepsis, the use of dexmedetomidine as compared with other sedative agents does not affect all-cause mortality, length of intensive care unit stay, the incidence of delirium, and delirium-free days. But the dexmedetomidine was associated with the reduced duration of mechanical ventilation and inflammatory response.
| S-EPMC8711777 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Mechanical ventilation is a commonly performed intervention in critically ill patients. Frequently, these patients experience deep sedation early in their clinical course. Emerging data suggest that the practice of early deep sedation may negatively impact patient outcomes. The purpose of this review is to assess the world's literature to describe and determine the impact of early deep sedation on the outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies will be eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. With the assistance of a medical librarian, we will comprehensively search MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews and Effects, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for peer-reviewed literature. Grey literature from appropriate professional society conferences, held from 2010 to 2017, will be reviewed manually. Two authors will independently review all search results, and disagreements will be resolved through arbitration by a third author. If appropriate, meta-analysis will be used for quantitative analysis of the data. Heterogeneity between studies will be assessed using the I2 statistic. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The proposed systematic review will not collect data that are associated with individual patients and does not require ethical approval. Results of this study will contribute to the understanding of early sedation, identify future research targets and guide early care in mechanically ventilated patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:This systematic review has been registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO #CRD42017057264).
| S-EPMC5726115 | biostudies-other