Dataset Information

Variation in outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation between different countries for patients with severe COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

COVID 19 is the most recent cause of Adult respiratory distress syndrome ARDS. Invasive mechanical ventilation IMV can support gas exchange in patients failing non-invasive ventilation, but its reported outcome is highly variable between countries. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on IMV for COVID-associated ARDS to study its outcome among different countries.

Methods

CENTRAL, MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched up to August 8, 2020. Studies reporting five or more patients with end point outcome for severe COVID 19 infection treated with IMV were included. The main outcome assessed was mortality. Baseline, procedural, outcome, and validity data were systematically appraised and pooled with random-effect methods. Subgroup analysis for different countries was performed. Meta-regression for the effect of study timing and patient age and were tested. Publication bias was examined. This trial was registered with PROSPERO under registration number CRD42020190365.

Findings

Our electronic search retrieved 4770 citations, 103 of which were selected for full-text review. Twenty-one studies with a combined population of 37359 patients with COVID-19 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. From this population, 5800 patients were treated by invasive mechanical ventilation. Out of those, 3301 patients reached an endpoint of ICU discharge or death after invasive mechanical ventilation while the rest were still in the ICU. Mortality from IMV was highly variable among the included studies ranging between 21% and 100%. Random-effect pooled estimates suggested an overall in-hospital mortality risk ratio of 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.608 to 0.797; I2 = 98%). Subgroup analysis according to country of origin showed homogeneity in the 8 Chinese studies with high pooled mortality risk ratio of 0.97 (I2 = 24%, p = 0.23) (95% CI = 0.94-1.00), similar to Italy with a low pooled mortality risk ratio of 0.26 (95% CI 0.08-0.43) with homogeneity (p = 0.86) while the later larger studies coming from the USA showed pooled estimate mortality risk ratio of 0.60 (95% CI 0.43-0.76) with persistent heterogeneity (I2 = 98%, p<0.001). Meta-regression showed that outcome from IMV improved with time (p<0.001). Age had no statistically significant effect on mortality (p = 0.102). Publication bias was excluded by visualizing the funnel plot of standard error, Egger's test with p = 0.714 and Begg&Mazumdar test with p = 0.334.

Interpretation

The study included the largest number of patients with outcome findings of IMV in this current pandemic. Our findings showed that the use of IMV for selected COVID 19 patients with severe ARDS carries a high mortality, but outcome has improved over the last few months and in more recent studies. The results should encourage physicians to use this facility when indicated for severely ill COVID-19 patients.

SUBMITTER: Elsayed HH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8177443 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to answer the question 'In adults with respiratory failure requiring invasive ventilation for more than 24 h, does a weaning strategy with early extubation to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) compared to invasive ventilation weaning reduce all-cause hospital mortality?' METHODS:We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that evaluated the use of non-invasive ventilation, compared to invasive ventilation, as a weaning strategy in adults mechanically ventilated for at least 24 h. The EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) bibliographic databases were searched from inception to February 2018. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to perform the meta-analysis. The primary outcome was mortality at hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included mortality (30, 60, 90 and 180 days), quality of life, duration of invasive ventilation, weaning failure, length of stay [intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital] and adverse events. RESULTS:Twenty-five relevant studies involving 1609 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Studies had moderate to high risk of bias due to risk of performance and detection bias. Mortality at hospital discharge was lower in the NIV weaning group compared to the invasive weaning group [pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.58, 95% highest density interval (HDI) 0.29-0.89]. Subgroup analyses showed lower pooled mortality at hospital discharge rates in NIV weaning than those in the control group in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients (pooled OR 0.43, 95% HDI 0.13-0.81) and the effect is less certain in the mixed ICU population (pooled OR 0.88, 95% HDI 0.25-1.48). NIV weaning reduced the duration of invasive ventilation in patients [standardised mean difference (SMD) -?1.34, 95% HDI -?1.92 to -?0.77] and ICU length of stay (SMD -?0.70, 95% HDI -?0.94 to -?0.46). Reported rates of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) were lower in the NIV group. NIV weaning did not reduce overall hospital length of stay or long-term mortality. There were insufficient data to compare other adverse events and health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS:The use of NIV in weaning from mechanical ventilation decreases hospital mortality, the incidence of VAP and ICU length of stay. NIV as a weaning strategy appears to be most beneficial in patients with COPD.

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an ongoing pandemic. Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is essential for the management of COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to assess the impact of compliance with a respiratory decision support system on the outcomes of patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS who required IMV.MethodsIn this retrospective, single-center, case series study, patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS who required IMV at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, China, from January 8th, 2020, to March 24th, 2020, with the final follow-up date of April 20th, 2020, were included. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, imaging, and management information were collected and analyzed. Compliance with the respiratory support decision system was documented, and its relationship with 28-day mortality was evaluated.ResultsThe study included 46 COVID-19-associated ARDS patients who required IMV. The median age of the 46 patients was 68.5 years, and 31 were men. The partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ratio at intensive care unit (ICU) admission was 104 mmHg. The median total length of IMV was 12.0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 6.0-27.3) days, and the median respiratory support decision score was 11.0 (IQR: 7.8-16.0). To 28 days after ICU admission, 18 (39.1%) patients died. Survivors had a significantly higher respiratory support decision score than non-survivors (15.0 [10.3-17.0] vs. 8.5 (6.0-10.3), P = 0.001). Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to assess the discrimination of respiratory support decision score to 28-day mortality, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.796 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.657-0.934, P = 0.001) and the cut-off was 11.5 (sensitivity = 0.679, specificity = 0.889). Patients with a higher score (>11.5) were more likely to survive at 28 days after ICU admission (log-rank test, P < 0.001).ConclusionsFor severe COVID-19-associated ARDS with IMV, following the respiratory support decision and assessing completion would improve the progress of ventilation. With a decision score of >11.5, the mortality at 28 days after ICU admission showed an obvious decrease.

Project description:IntroductionThe purpose of the present study was to critically review the existing body of evidence on ventilation modes for infants and children up to the age of 18 years.MethodsThe PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched using the search terms 'artificial respiration', 'instrumentation', 'device', 'devices', 'mode', and 'modes'. The review included only studies comparing two ventilation modes in a randomized controlled study and reporting one of the following outcome measures: length of ventilation (LOV), oxygenation, mortality, chronic lung disease and weaning. We quantitatively pooled the results of trials where suitable.ResultsFive trials met the inclusion criteria. They addressed six different ventilation modes in 421 children: high-frequency oscillation (HFO), pressure control (PC), pressure support (PS), volume support (VS), volume diffusive respirator (VDR) and biphasic positive airway pressure. Overall there were no significant differences in LOV and mortality or survival rate associated with the different ventilation modes. Two trials compared HFO versus conventional ventilation. In the pooled analysis, the mortality rate did not differ between these modes (odds ratio = 0.83, 95% confidence interval = 0.30 to 1.91). High-frequency ventilation (HFO and VDR) was associated with a better oxygenation after 72 hours than was conventional ventilation. One study found a significantly higher PaO2/FiO2 ratio with the use of VDR versus PC ventilation in children with burns. Weaning was studied in 182 children assigned to either a PS protocol, a VS protocol or no protocol. Most children could be weaned within 2 days and the weaning time did not significantly differ between the groups.ConclusionsThe literature provides scarce data for the best ventilation mode in critically ill children beyond the newborn period. There is no evidence, however, that high-frequency ventilation reduced mortality and LOV. Longer-term outcome measures such as pulmonary function, neurocognitive development, and cost-effectiveness should be considered in future studies.

Project description:ObjectiveThere are concerns of a high barotrauma rate in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. However, a few studies were published, and reported rates were highly variable. We performed a systematic literature review to identify rates of barotrauma, pneumothorax, and pneumomediastinum in coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.Data sourcePubMed and Scopus were searched for studies reporting barotrauma event rate in adult coronavirus disease 2019 patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.Study selectionWe included all studies investigating adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring mechanical ventilation. Case reports, studies performed outside ICU setting, and pediatric studies were excluded. Two investigators independently screened and selected studies for inclusion.Data extractionTwo investigators abstracted data on study characteristics, rate of pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum and overall barotrauma events, and mortality. When available, data from noncoronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients were also collected. Pooled estimates for barotrauma, pneumothorax, and pneumomediastinum were calculated.Data synthesisA total of 13 studies with 1,814 invasively ventilated coronavirus disease 2019 patients and 493 noncoronavirus disease 2019 patients were included. A total of 266/1,814 patients (14.7%) had at least one barotrauma event (pooled estimates, 16.1% [95% CI, 11.8-20.4%]). Pneumothorax occurred in 132/1,435 patients (pooled estimates, 10.7%; 95% CI, 6.7-14.7%), whereas pneumomediastinum occurred in 162/1,432 patients (pooled estimates, 11.2%; 95% CI, 8.0-14.3%). Mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 patients who developed barotrauma was 111/198 patients (pooled estimates, 61.6%; 95% CI, 50.2-73.0%). In noncoronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients, barotrauma occurred in 31/493 patients (6.3%; pooled estimates, 5.7%; 95% CI, -2.1% to 13.5%).ConclusionsBarotrauma occurs in one out of six coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and is associated with a mortality rate of about 60%. Barotrauma rate may be higher than noncoronavirus disease 2019 controls.

Project description: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 lower area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUSROC) of 0.80 (0.76 to 0.83), but stronger in the older 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?<?25?months). The optimal threshold of ?VPeak to predict fluid responsiveness in ventilated children is reliable between 12 and 13%. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The study protocol was registered prospectively on PROSPERO no. CRD42019129361.