Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Ventilación de alta frecuencia versus ventilación convencional para el tratamiento de las lesiones pulmonares agudas y el síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004085.pub3Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 28 febrero 2013see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Anestesia

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Sachin Sud

    Correspondencia a: Division of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Trillium Health Center, University of Toronto, Mississauga, Canada

    [email protected]

  • Maneesh Sud

    Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

  • Jan O Friedrich

    Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto and Keenan Research Centre/Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Critical Care and Medicine Departments, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada

  • Hannah Wunsch

    Department of Anesthesiology, College of Physicians and Surgeons; Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, USA

  • Maureen O Meade

    Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

  • Niall D Ferguson

    Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University Health Network and Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

  • Neill KJ Adhikari

    Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, and Department of Critical Care Medicine and Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada

Contributions of authors

All authors contributed to the study concept and design, revised the manuscript for important intellectual content, and approved the final version. SS conceived the study, acquired data, analysed and interpreted data, and drafted the manuscript. MS, JOF, and NKJA acquired, analysed and interpreted the data. MOM, NDF, and HW interpreted the data. NKJA and JOF contributed equally to this study. SS, JOF, NKJA are guarantors.

Declarations of interest

All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare that all authors had:

  1. no financial support for the submitted work from anyone other than their employer;

  2. no financial relationships with commercial entities that might have an interest in the submitted work;

  3. no spouses, partners, or children with relationships with commercial entities that might have an interest in the submitted work;

  4. the following non‐financial interests relevant to the submitted work: Drs Meade and Ferguson are primary investigators and Drs Friedrich and Adhikari are co‐investigators for the ongoing Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) funded OSCILLATE study. CareFusion (formerly SensorMedics) is providing study oscillators to some of the hospitals involved in the OSCILLATE study for the duration of the study.

Acknowledgements

We thank all primary investigators who provided additional data for this review: Steven Derdak and Tom Bachman; Casper Bollen; Spyros Mentzelopoulos; Rujipat Samransamruajkit; and Sanjoy Shah.

We would like to acknowledge James Mapstone for contributions made to earlier versions of this systematic review (Wunsch 2004).

We would like to thank Mathew Zacharias (content editor), Marialena Trivella (statistical editor), Rodrigo Cavallazzi, Hansjoerg Waibel, Arash Afshari (peer reviewers) and Janet Wale (consumer Editor) for their help and editorial advice during the preparation of this updated systematic review.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2016 Apr 04

High‐frequency oscillatory ventilation versus conventional ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome

Review

Sachin Sud, Maneesh Sud, Jan O Friedrich, Hannah Wunsch, Maureen O Meade, Niall D Ferguson, Neill KJ Adhikari

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004085.pub4

2013 Feb 28

High‐frequency ventilation versus conventional ventilation for treatment of acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome

Review

Sachin Sud, Maneesh Sud, Jan O Friedrich, Hannah Wunsch, Maureen O Meade, Niall D Ferguson, Neill KJ Adhikari

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004085.pub3

2004 Jan 26

High‐frequency ventilation versus conventional ventilation for treatment of acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome

Review

Hannah Wunsch, James Mapstone

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004085.pub2

2002 Jun 26

High‐frequency ventilation versus conventional ventilation for treatment of acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome

Protocol

Hannah Wunsch, James Mapstone

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004085

Differences between protocol and review

Original Protocol

Amended Protocol (03 27 2009)

Reason (outcome #)

Primary:

mortality

(Intensive care unit (ICU), hospital, 30 days, 60 plus days).

Primary outcomes:  

1. hospital or 30‐day mortality.

 

Hospital mortality is the most common endpoint in critical care studies. ICU mortality is not a patient centred outcome. Hospital mortality and 30‐day mortality are considered equivalent. Longer term mortality was included as a secondary outcome.

Secondary:

 1. total length of mechanical ventilation (high‐frequency and conventional combined),

2. length of stay in the intensive care unit,

3. length of hospital stay,

4. any long‐term quality of life measurements,

5. any long‐term cognitive measurements,

6. cost effectiveness.

Secondary outcomes:  

1. 6‐month mortality,

2. duration of mechanical ventilation (in days, as stated by the authors),

3. ventilator‐free days to day 28 or 30 (in days, as stated by the authors),

4. health‐related quality of life at one year,

5. treatment failure, leading to crossover to the other arm or discontinuation of the study protocol. We accepted authors’ definitions of treatment failure, which could include severe oxygenation failure, ventilation failure, hypotension, or barotrauma (pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, subcutaneous emphysema),

6. the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2) to inspired fraction of oxygen (FiO2) (PaO2/FiO2 ratio) at 24, 48, and 72 hours after randomization,

7. oxygenation index (OI, defined as 100 x mean airway pressure/PaO2/FiO2 ratio) measured at 24, 48, and 72 hours after randomization,

8. ventilation, measured by partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) at 24, 48, and 72 hours after randomization,

9. mean airway pressure 24, 48, and 72 hours after randomization,

10. barotrauma (as stated by the authors),

11. hypotension (as stated by the authors),

12. endotracheal tube obstruction due to secretions,

13. technical complications and equipment failure in patients treated with HFO (including unintentional system air leaks, and problems with the oscillatory diaphragm, humidifier, and alarm systems).

 

Total duration of mechanical ventilation (1) is ambiguous may be measured in two ways in critical care trials: days of mechanical ventilation or ventilator free days. Since these endpoints cannot be combined we analysed them separately. We did not analyse length of ICU stay or hospital length of stay (2, 3) as these were likely to be confounded by mortality (an intervention that improves survival will also increase ICU or hospital length of stay). Long term quality of life measurements (4) and long term cognitive measurements (5) was not precisely defined and unlikely to be reported in studies to date. We chose to analyse health‐related quality of life at one year, if reported.

 

We did not analyse cost‐effectiveness (6) because it is unlikely cost‐effectiveness studies would be performed since this intervention has not been yet proven to be effective.

 

We included several physiologic endpoints not in the original review in order to assess the effect of HFO on oxygenation (6,7) and ventilation (8,9).

 

We included several additional safety endpoints prior to undertaking this update in order to assess potential complications of HFO (10‐13).

Subgroup analyses:

none.

Subgroup analyses:

(see Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity; Sensitivity analysis).

(See text)

Search strategy:

 

(see previous version: Wunsch 2004).

 

 

Search strategy:

 

(see Appendix 1).

 

 

A more sensitive (but less specific) search strategy was designed using published sensitive strategies for retrieving randomized trials (Haynes 2005; Wong 2006). We also improved sensitivity of the search strategy by searching conference proceedings and contacting  primary investigators.

Keywords

MeSH

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.

Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Mortality, outcome: 1.1 Hospital or 30‐day mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Mortality, outcome: 1.1 Hospital or 30‐day mortality.

Forest plot of comparison: 2 Adverse events, outcome: 2.1 Treatment failure (intractable hypoxia, hypotension, acidosis, hypercapnoea requiring discontinuation of study intervention).
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Forest plot of comparison: 2 Adverse events, outcome: 2.1 Treatment failure (intractable hypoxia, hypotension, acidosis, hypercapnoea requiring discontinuation of study intervention).

Comparison 1 Mortality, Outcome 1 Hospital or 30‐day Mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Mortality, Outcome 1 Hospital or 30‐day Mortality.

Comparison 1 Mortality, Outcome 2 Hospital or 30‐day Mortality (Bollen 2005 patients lost to follow‐up excluded).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Mortality, Outcome 2 Hospital or 30‐day Mortality (Bollen 2005 patients lost to follow‐up excluded).

Comparison 1 Mortality, Outcome 3 Hospital or 30‐day mortality: Adult versus paediatric trials.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Mortality, Outcome 3 Hospital or 30‐day mortality: Adult versus paediatric trials.

Comparison 1 Mortality, Outcome 4 Hospital or 30‐day Mortality: Low risk of bias versus unclear risk of bias.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Mortality, Outcome 4 Hospital or 30‐day Mortality: Low risk of bias versus unclear risk of bias.

Comparison 1 Mortality, Outcome 5 Hospital or 30‐day Mortality: Lung protective ventilation mandatory vs. not mandatory.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Mortality, Outcome 5 Hospital or 30‐day Mortality: Lung protective ventilation mandatory vs. not mandatory.

Comparison 2 Adverse events, Outcome 1 Treatment Failure (Intractable Hypoxia, Hypotension, Acidosis, Hypercapnea requiring discontinuation of study intervention).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Adverse events, Outcome 1 Treatment Failure (Intractable Hypoxia, Hypotension, Acidosis, Hypercapnea requiring discontinuation of study intervention).

Comparison 2 Adverse events, Outcome 2 Barotrauma.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Adverse events, Outcome 2 Barotrauma.

Comparison 2 Adverse events, Outcome 3 Hypotension.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Adverse events, Outcome 3 Hypotension.

Comparison 2 Adverse events, Outcome 4 Hypotension (Shah and Mentzelopoulos included).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Adverse events, Outcome 4 Hypotension (Shah and Mentzelopoulos included).

Comparison 2 Adverse events, Outcome 5 ETT Obstruction.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Adverse events, Outcome 5 ETT Obstruction.

Comparison 3 Ventilator dependency, Outcome 1 Duration of Mechanical Ventilation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Ventilator dependency, Outcome 1 Duration of Mechanical Ventilation.

Comparison 4 Physiological endpoints (ratio of means), Outcome 1 PaO2/FiO2 (Ratio of Means).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Physiological endpoints (ratio of means), Outcome 1 PaO2/FiO2 (Ratio of Means).

Comparison 4 Physiological endpoints (ratio of means), Outcome 2 Oxygenation Index (Ratio of Means).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Physiological endpoints (ratio of means), Outcome 2 Oxygenation Index (Ratio of Means).

Comparison 4 Physiological endpoints (ratio of means), Outcome 3 PaCO2 (Ratio of Means).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Physiological endpoints (ratio of means), Outcome 3 PaCO2 (Ratio of Means).

Comparison 4 Physiological endpoints (ratio of means), Outcome 4 Mean Airway Pressure (Ratio of Means).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Physiological endpoints (ratio of means), Outcome 4 Mean Airway Pressure (Ratio of Means).

Summary of findings for the main comparison. HFO compared to conventional mechanical ventilation for ALI and ARDS

HFO compared to conventional mechanical ventilation for ALI and ARDS

Patient or population: patients with ALI and ARDS
Settings: Critical care units
Intervention: High frequency oscillation
Comparison: Conventional mechanical ventilation

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Conventional mechanical ventilation

High Frequency Oscillation

Hospital (or 30 day) mortality

Typical risk1

RR 0.77
(0.61 to 0.98)

365
(6 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate2,3

443 per 1000

341 per 1000
(270 to 434)

6 month mortality

589 per 10004

465 per 1000
(342 to 636)

RR 0.79
(0.58 to 1.08)

148
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low3

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 The basis of the assumed risk is a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the mortality in patients with ARDS (Phua 2009).
2 The risk of bias was low in four studies, and unclear in two studies due to incomplete outcome data. In three studies control group ventilation used higher tidal volumes then currently recommended.
3 We downgraded the quality of evidence due to imprecision because of small numbers of patients and outcome events, resulting in wide confidence intervals which might include both appreciable and negligible benefit (serious limitations), or appreciable benefit and possible harm (very serious limitations).
4 The basis of the assumed risk is the control group risk.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. HFO compared to conventional mechanical ventilation for ALI and ARDS
Comparison 1. Mortality

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Hospital or 30‐day Mortality Show forest plot

6

365

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.61, 0.98]

2 Hospital or 30‐day Mortality (Bollen 2005 patients lost to follow‐up excluded) Show forest plot

6

362

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.61, 0.98]

3 Hospital or 30‐day mortality: Adult versus paediatric trials Show forest plot

6

365

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.61, 0.98]

3.1 Adult Trials

4

291

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.58, 1.02]

3.2 Paediatric Trials

2

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.44, 1.43]

4 Hospital or 30‐day Mortality: Low risk of bias versus unclear risk of bias Show forest plot

6

365

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.61, 0.98]

4.1 Low Risk of Bias Trials (free of selection, reporting, and attrition bias)

4

246

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.53, 0.92]

4.2 Unclear Risk of Bias Trials (possible selection, reporting or attrition bias)

2

119

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.65, 1.66]

5 Hospital or 30‐day Mortality: Lung protective ventilation mandatory vs. not mandatory Show forest plot

6

365

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.61, 0.98]

5.1 Lung Protective Ventilation Not Mandatory

3

267

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.61, 1.16]

5.2 Lung Protective Ventilation Mandatory

3

98

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.44, 1.03]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Mortality
Comparison 2. Adverse events

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Treatment Failure (Intractable Hypoxia, Hypotension, Acidosis, Hypercapnea requiring discontinuation of study intervention) Show forest plot

5

337

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.46, 0.99]

2 Barotrauma Show forest plot

6

365

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.37, 1.22]

3 Hypotension Show forest plot

3

267

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.54 [0.34, 7.02]

4 Hypotension (Shah and Mentzelopoulos included) Show forest plot

5

349

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.46 [0.77, 2.76]

5 ETT Obstruction Show forest plot

4

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Adverse events
Comparison 3. Ventilator dependency

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Duration of Mechanical Ventilation Show forest plot

4

276

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.75 [‐5.36, 3.85]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Ventilator dependency
Comparison 4. Physiological endpoints (ratio of means)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 PaO2/FiO2 (Ratio of Means) Show forest plot

7

Ratio of Means (Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Day 1

7

323

Ratio of Means (Random, 95% CI)

1.24 [1.10, 1.40]

1.2 Day 2

5

262

Ratio of Means (Random, 95% CI)

1.16 [0.97, 1.37]

1.3 Day 3

5

228

Ratio of Means (Random, 95% CI)

1.17 [1.02, 1.35]

2 Oxygenation Index (Ratio of Means) Show forest plot

7

Ratio of Means (Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Day 1

7

352

Ratio of Means (Random, 95% CI)

1.11 [0.97, 1.26]

2.2 Day 2

6

306

Ratio of Means (Random, 95% CI)

1.07 [0.92, 1.24]

2.3 Day 3

6

266

Ratio of Means (Random, 95% CI)

1.07 [0.88, 1.29]

3 PaCO2 (Ratio of Means) Show forest plot

8

Ratio of Means (Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Day 1

8

386

Ratio of Means (Random, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.78, 1.07]

3.2 Day 2

6

310

Ratio of Means (Random, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.72, 1.06]

3.3 Day 3

6

267

Ratio of Means (Random, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.84, 1.14]

4 Mean Airway Pressure (Ratio of Means) Show forest plot

8

Ratio of Means (Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Day 1

8

389

Ratio of Means (Random, 95% CI)

1.33 [1.27, 1.40]

4.2 Day 2

6

309

Ratio of Means (Random, 95% CI)

1.26 [1.16, 1.37]

4.3 Day 3

6

274

Ratio of Means (Random, 95% CI)

1.22 [1.07, 1.39]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Physiological endpoints (ratio of means)