Dataset Information

Value of respiratory variation of aortic peak velocity in predicting children receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Accurate volume assessment is crucial in children under fluid therapy. Over the last decade, respiratory variation of aortic peak velocity (?VPeak) has been applied in intensive care unit and surgeries to help clinicians guide fluid management. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to test diagnostic performance of ?VPeak in predicting fluid responsiveness of ventilated children and to explore the potential factors that influence the accuracy of ?VPeak. METHODS:We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane from inception to April 2019 that evaluated association between ?VPeak and fluid responsiveness after fluid challenge in children receiving mechanical ventilation. Data synthesis was performed within the bivariate mixed-effects regression model modified for synthesis of diagnostic test data. RESULTS:Eleven studies with a total of 302 pediatric patients were included in our meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ?VPeak was 0.89 (95%CI?=?0.77 to 0.95) and 0.85 (95%CI?=?0.77 to 0.91), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of ?VPeak was 48 (95%CI?=?15 to 155). SROC yielded an area under the curve of 0.91 (95%CI?=?0.88-0.93). The ?VPeak cutoff value was nearly conically symmetrical distribution and varied from 7 to 20%. After excluding several extreme studies, most data were centered between 12 and 13%. The medium and mean cutoff values of ?VPeak were 12.2% and 12.7%, respectively. In subgroup analysis, compared to total data analysis, ?VPeak performed weaker in the younger children group (mean ages ?25?months), with AUSROC of 0.96 (0.94 to 0.97). CONCLUSIONS:Overall, ?VPeak has a good ability in predicting fluid responsiveness of children receiving mechanical ventilation, but this ability decreases in younger children (mean age?

SUBMITTER: Wang X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6874822 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Value of respiratory variation of aortic peak velocity in predicting children receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wang Xiaoying X Jiang Lulu L Liu Shuai S Ge Yali Y Gao Ju J

Critical care (London, England) 20191122 1

<h4>Background</h4>Accurate volume assessment is crucial in children under fluid therapy. Over the last decade, respiratory variation of aortic peak velocity (△VPeak) has been applied in intensive care unit and surgeries to help clinicians guide fluid management. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to test diagnostic performance of △VPeak in predicting fluid responsiveness of ventilated children and to explore the potential factors that influence the accuracy of △VPeak.<h4>Me ...[more]

PMID: 31757222

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecruitment manoeuvres involve transient elevations in airway pressure applied during mechanical ventilation to open ('recruit') collapsed lung units and increase the number of alveoli participating in tidal ventilation. Recruitment manoeuvres are often used to treat patients in intensive care who have acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but the effect of this treatment on clinical outcomes has not been well established. This systematic review is an update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2009.ObjectivesOur primary objective was to determine the effects of recruitment manoeuvres on mortality in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome.Our secondary objective was to determine, in the same population, the effects of recruitment manoeuvres on oxygenation and adverse events (e.g. rate of barotrauma).Search methodsFor this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL, EBSCO), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry from inception to August 2016.Selection criteriaWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults who were mechanically ventilated that compared recruitment manoeuvres versus standard care for patients given a diagnosis of ARDS.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.Main resultsTen trials met the inclusion criteria for this review (n = 1658 participants). We found five trials to be at low risk of bias and five to be at moderate risk of bias. Six of the trials included recruitment manoeuvres as part of an open lung ventilation strategy that was different from control ventilation in aspects other than the recruitment manoeuvre (such as mode of ventilation, higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration and lower tidal volume or plateau pressure). Six studies reported mortality outcomes. Pooled data from five trials (1370 participants) showed a reduction in intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.97, P = 0.02, low-quality evidence), pooled data from five trials (1450 participants) showed no difference in 28-day mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.01, P = 0.06, low-quality evidence) and pooled data from four trials (1313 participants) showed no difference in in-hospital mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01, P = 0.07, low-quality evidence). Data revealed no differences in risk of barotrauma (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.53, P = 0.60, seven studies, 1508 participants, moderate-quality evidence).Authors' conclusionsWe identified significant clinical heterogeneity in the 10 included trials. Results are based upon the findings of several (five) trials that included an "open lung ventilation strategy", whereby the intervention group differed from the control group in aspects other than the recruitment manoeuvre (including co-interventions such as higher PEEP, different modes of ventilation and higher plateau pressure), making interpretation of the results difficult. A ventilation strategy that included recruitment manoeuvres in participants with ARDS reduced intensive care unit mortality without increasing the risk of barotrauma but had no effect on 28-day and hospital mortality. We downgraded the quality of the evidence to low, as most of the included trials provided co-interventions as part of an open lung ventilation strategy, and this might have influenced results of the outcome.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although routine administration of pharmacologic sedation or analgesia during mechanical ventilation in preterm neonates is not recommended, its use in clinical practice remains common. Alpha-2 agonists, mainly clonidine and dexmedetomidine, are used as adjunctive (or alternative) sedative agents alongside opioids and benzodiazepines. Clonidine has not been systematically assessed for use in neonatal sedation during ventilation. OBJECTIVES:To assess whether clonidine administered to term and preterm newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation reduces morbidity and mortality rates. To compare the intervention versus placebo, no treatment, and dexmedetomidine; and to assess the safety of clonidine infusion for potential harms.To perform subgroup analyses according to gestational age; birth weight; administration method (infusion or bolus therapy); dose, duration, and route of clonidine administration; and pharmacologic sedation as a co-intervention. SEARCH METHODS:We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to January 10, 2017), Embase (1980 to January 10, 2017), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to January 10, 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials. SELECTION CRITERIA:We searched for randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, and cluster trials comparing clonidine versus placebo, no treatment, or dexmedetomidine administered to term and preterm newborns receiving mechanical ventilation via an endotracheal tube. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:For the included trial, two review authors independently extracted data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, all-cause death during initial hospitalization, duration of respiratory support, sedation scale, duration of hospital stay) and assessed risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomization, blinding, completeness of follow-up). This review considered primary outcomes of all-cause neonatal death, all-cause death during initial hospitalization, and duration of mechanical ventilation in days. MAIN RESULTS:One trial, which included 112 infants, met the inclusion criteria for this review. Term newborn infants on mechanical ventilation with the need for continuous analgesia and sedation with fentanyl and midazolam were eligible for enrollment during the first 96 hours of ventilation. Study authors administered clonidine 1 ?g/kg/h or placebo on day 4 after intubation.We found no differences between the two groups in all-cause death during hospitalization (risk ratio [RR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.12 to 3.98). The quality of the evidence supporting these findings is low owing to imprecision of the estimates (one study; few events). The median (interquartile range) duration of mechanical ventilation was 7.1 days (5.7 to 9.1 days) in the clonidine group and 5.8 days (4.9 to 7.9 days) in the placebo group, respectively (P = 0.070). Among secondary outcomes, we found no differences in terms of duration of stay in the intensive care unit. Sedation scale values (COMFORT) and analgesia scores (Hartwig) during the first 72 hours of infusion of study medication were lower in the clonidine group than in the placebo group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:At present, evidence is insufficient to show the efficacy and safety of clonidine for sedation and analgesia in term and preterm newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation.

Dataset Information

Value of respiratory variation of aortic peak velocity in predicting children receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Value of respiratory variation of aortic peak velocity in predicting children receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets