Recruitment manoeuvres for adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome receiving mechanical ventilation

Carol Hodgson; Ewan C Goligher; Meredith E Young; Jennifer L Keating; Anne E Holland; Lorena Romero; Scott J Bradley; David Tuxen

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006667.pub3

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Maniobras de reexpansión para adultos con síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda sometidos a asistencia respiratoria mecánica

Información

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006667.pub3 Copiar DOI

Base de datos:

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Versión publicada:

17 noviembre 2016see what's new

Tipo:

Intervention

Etapa:

Review

Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

Grupo Cochrane de Atención crítica y de emergencia

Copyright:

Copyright © 2018 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

Carol Hodgson

Correspondencia a: Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre (ANZIC‐RC), Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

[email protected]

[email protected]

Department of Physiotherapy, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
Ewan C Goligher

Department of Medicine, Division of Respirology, University Health Network, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Canada
Meredith E Young

Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre (ANZIC‐RC), Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Jennifer L Keating

Department of Physiotherapy, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Anne E Holland

Discipline of Physiotherapy, School of Allied Health, Department of Rehabilitation, Nutrition and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
Lorena Romero

The Ian Potter Library, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
Scott J Bradley

Department of Physiotherapy, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
David Tuxen

Department of Intensive Care, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia

Contributions of authors

Carol Hodgson (CH), Ewan C Goligher (EG), Meredith E Young (MY), Jennifer L Keating (JK), Anne E Holland (AH) Lorena Romero (LR), Scott J Bradley (SB), David Tuxen (DT).

Conceiving of the review: CH, JK, DT.
Co‐ordinating the review: CH, JK.
Undertaking manual searches: CH, LR.
Screening search results: CH, SB, EG.
Organizing retrieval of papers: CH, LR, MY.
Screening retrieved papers against inclusion criteria: CH, SB, EG, MY.
Appraising the quality of papers: CH, SB, EG, MY.
Abstracting data from papers: CH, SB, EG, MY.
Writing to authors of papers for additional information: CH, MY.
Providing additional data about papers: CH.
Obtaining and screening data from unpublished studies: CH, MY.
Managing data for the review: CH, JK.
Entering data into Review Manager (RevMan 5.3): CH, JK, MY.
Analysing RevMan statistical data: CH, JK, AH.
Performing other statistical analysis not using RevMan: CH, JK, AH.
Performing double entry of data: data entered by person one, CH; data entered by person two, JK.
Interpreting data: CH, JK, AH, EG, DT.
Making statistical inferences: CH, JK, EG.
Writing the review: CH, AH, DT, JK, SB, LR.
Securing funding for the review: CH, DT, AH, JK.
Performing previous work that provided the foundation for the present study: CH, DT, EG.
Serving as guarantor for the review (one review author): CH.
Taking responsibility for reading and checking the review before submission: DT.

Sources of support

Internal sources

No sources of support, Australia.

External sources

No sources of support, Australia.

Declarations of interest

Carol Hodgson is a co‐author of an included study (Hodgson 2011) and is co‐chair of the ongoing study (PHARLAP Group Investigators). EG and MY provided critical appraisal and data extraction for this included study.

Ewan C Goligher: none known.

Meredith E Young: none known.

Jennifer L Keating: co‐author of an included study (Hodgson 2011). EG and MY provided critical appraisal and data extraction for this included study.

Anne E Holland: co‐author of an included study (Hodgson 2011). EG and MY provided critical appraisal and data extraction for this included study.

Lorena Romero: none known.

Scott J Bradley: none known.

David Tuxen: co‐author of an included study (Hodgson 2011) and member of the management committee for the ongoing study (PHARLAP Group Investigators). EG and MY provided critical appraisal and data extraction for this included study.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the support of the ANZIC‐RC, the NHMRC (CH fellowship) and Alfred Health. We would also like to acknowledge and thank Andrew R Davies for his contribution to the original review (Hodgson 2009).

We would like to thank Sue Huckson, Thomas Bein, Davide Chiumello, and Todd Rice (Peer Referees); Cathal D Walsh (Statistical Editor); Corrie Billedeau and Janet L Wale (Consumer Referee and Editor); and Harald Herkner (Content Editor) for help and advice provided during preparation of the updated review.

We would like to thank John Carlisle (Content Editor), Nathan Pace (Statistical Editor) and Rafael Fernandez, Malcolm G Booth and David Pestaña (Peer Reviewers) for help and editorial advice provided during preparation of the previous review (Hodgson 2009).

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2016 Nov 17

Recruitment manoeuvres for adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome receiving mechanical ventilation

Review

Carol Hodgson, Ewan C Goligher, Meredith E Young, Jennifer L Keating, Anne E Holland, Lorena Romero, Scott J Bradley, David Tuxen

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006667.pub3

2009 Apr 15

Recruitment manoeuvres for adults with acute lung injury receiving mechanical ventilation

Review

Carol Hodgson, Jennifer L Keating, Anne E Holland, Andrew R Davies, Lorena Smirneos, Scott J Bradley, David Tuxen

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006667.pub2

2007 Jul 18

Recruitment manoeuvres for adults receiving mechanical ventilation with acute lung injury

Protocol

Carol Hodgson, Scott J Bradley, Andrew R Davies, Anne Holland, Jennifer L Keating, Lorena Smirneos, David Tuxen

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006667

Differences between protocol and review

We made the following changes to the protocol (Hodgson 2007) in August 2016.

One author, Andrew R Davies, was not involved in the update. Two new additional co‐authors were added (EG and MY).
We changed the title and content to reflect the Berlin definition of ARDS and removed the term 'acute lung injury' (ARDS Definition Task Force 2012).
We updated the search to August 2016. We found 15 new studies; we included three of these and excluded nine, two are ongoing and one is awaiting classification.
We added new risk of bias tables.
We updated methods and outcome measures. We removed length of stay (hospital and ICU) as an outcome, as it is not reported for survivors and non‐survivors. We removed blood pressure as an outcome, as generally it was reported as a short‐term outcome. We added use of rescue therapies as an outcome.
We redefined the control group standard of care as "protective lung ventilation"
We excluded Amato 1998, as investigators used 12 mL/kg in the control group, which is not standard care.
We excluded cross‐over trials from the included studies, as we could not assess the primary outcome with this type of study.

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Adult; Humans; Young Adult;

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.

Figure 1

Study flow diagram.29

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 2

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Recruitment manoeuvres versus no recruitment manoeuvres, outcome: 1.1 28‐Day mortality.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 3

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Recruitment manoeuvres versus no recruitment manoeuvres, outcome: 1.7 ICU mortality.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 4

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 5

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Recruitment manoeuvres versus no recruitment manoeuvres, Outcome 1 28‐Day mortality.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Recruitment manoeuvres versus no recruitment manoeuvres, Outcome 2 ICU mortality.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Recruitment manoeuvres versus no recruitment manoeuvres, Outcome 3 In‐hospital mortality.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Recruitment manoeuvres versus no recruitment manoeuvres, Outcome 4 Rate of barotrauma.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Recruitment manoeuvres versus no recruitment manoeuvres, Outcome 5 Use of rescue therapies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Recruitment manoeuvres versus no recruitment manoeuvres, Outcome 6 PaO2/FiO2 ratio at 24 to 48 hours.

Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Recruitment manoeuvres versus no recruitment manoeuvres, Outcome 6 PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio at 24 to 48 hours.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Recruitment manoeuvres compared with standard care for adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome who were mechanically ventilated
Patient or population: mechanically ventilated adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Participants were recruited from ICUs internationally, including Australia, Brazil, China, Europe, Canada, Korea, Seoul, Taiwan and the United States. Settings: intensive care unit Intervention: recruitment manoeuvres Comparison: standard care
Outcomes	*Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	Number of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Control	Intervention
28‐Day mortality	Risk for the population		RR 0.86 (0.74 to 1.01)	1450 (5 studies)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low^a	Four of the 5 trials include co‐interventions that may influence the result of the outcome.
	347 per 1000	294 per 1000
ICU mortality	Risk for the population		RR 0.83 (0.72 to 0.97)	1370 (5 studies)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low^a	Four of the 5 trials include co‐interventions that may influence the result of the outcome.
	362 per 1000	303 per 1000
In‐hospital mortality	Risk for the population		RR 0.88 (0.77 to 1.01)	1313 (4 studies)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low^a	Three of the 4 trials include co‐interventions that may influence the result of the outcome.
	405 per 1000	356 per 1000
Rate of barotrauma	Risk for the population		RR 1.09 (0.78 to 1.51)	1508 (7 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate^b
	90 per 1000	86 per 1000
The basis for the assumed risk* (e.g. 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.
^aLung recruitment manoeuvres were used with co‐interventions that may affect the result of the outcome (Hodgson 2011; Meade 2008; Huh 2009; Kacmarek 2016; Liu 2011). We downgraded the quality of the evidence by two levels for indirectness of evidence. We made this decision a priori. ^bWe noted no heterogeneity among trial effect estimates but observed that reported confidence intervals around effect estimates were wide. We downgraded the quality of the evidence by one level for imprecision in results.

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 1. Description of recruitment manoeuvre procedure

Study	Mode	Peak pressure (cm H₂O)	Time (sec)	PEEP titration differed between groups	Mean PEEP after RM (cm H₂O)	Repetitions
Cavalcanti et al, 2013	PCV	60 (delivered incrementally)	240	Yes	16.1	Daily (+ after desaturation or disconnection)
Hodgson 2011	PCV	55 (delivered incrementally)	360	Yes	17.4	Daily (+ after desaturation or disconnection)
Huh 2009	VCV	≤ 55 (delivered incrementally to 25 cm H₂O PEEP with decremental tidal volume setting)	NS	Yes	10	Daily (+ after desaturation or disconnection)
Kacmarek 2016	PCV	≤ 60 depending on the participant's response (delivered incrementally to PEEP 35 to 45 cm H₂O)	120	Yes	15.8	NS
Liu 2011	NS	NS	NS	Yes	NS	NS
Meade 2008	PCV	40	40	Yes	14.6	Frequently after disconnection
Oczenski 2004	PCV	50	30	No	15.1	Once
Wang 2009	BIPAP	NS	NS	N/A	NS	Eight‐hourly
Xi 2010	CPAP	40 (cm H₂O CPAP)	40	No	10.5	Eight‐hourly
Yang 2011	CPAP	40 (cm H₂O CPAP)	30	No	NS	Eight‐hourly
Huh 2009 ‐ RM with incremental and decremental titration cycled twice over 10 minutes. BIPAP = bi‐level positive airway pressure; CPAP = continuous positive airway pressure; NS = not stated; PCV = pressure‐cycled ventilation; sec = seconds; VCV = volume‐cycled ventilation.

Table 1. Description of recruitment manoeuvre procedure

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 2. Outcomes considered for this review

Study	Mortality	Oxygenation	Adverse events
Cavalcanti et al, 2013	N/A	PaO₂/FiO₂	Barotrauma
Hodgson 2011	1. in hospital	PaO₂/FiO₂	Barotrauma Rescue therapies
Huh 2009	1. 28‐day 2. in ICU	PaO₂/FiO₂	Barotrauma Rescue therapies
Kacmarek 2016	1. in hospital 2. in ICU		Barotrauma
Liu 2011	28‐day	PaO₂/FiO₂	Barotrauma
Meade 2008	28‐day in hospital in ICU during mechanical ventilation	PaO₂/FiO₂	Barotrauma Rescue therapies
Oczenski 2004	N/A	PaO₂/FiO₂	N/A
Wang 2009	N/A	PaO₂/FiO₂	N/A
Xi 2010	28‐day in hospital in ICU	PaO₂/FiO₂	Barotrauma
Yang 2011	N/A	SpO₂ PaO₂/FiO₂	Barotrauma Pneumonia
CO = cardiac output; FiO₂/PEEP step = changes in level of inspired oxygen at set levels of positive end‐expiratory pressure; HR = heart rate; ICU = intensive care unit; MAP = mean arterial pressure; N/A = not available; PaO₂/FiO₂ = fraction of arterial oxygen to inspired oxygen; SBP = systolic blood pressure; SpO₂ = oxygen saturation from pulse oximetry.

Table 2. Outcomes considered for this review

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 1. Recruitment manoeuvres versus no recruitment manoeuvres

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 28‐Day mortality Show forest plot	5	1450	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.86 [0.74, 1.01]

1.1 Open lung ventilation including recruitment manoeuvres	4	1340	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.88 [0.75, 1.04]
1.2 Recruitment manoeuvres	1	110	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.67 [0.40, 1.11]
2 ICU mortality Show forest plot	5	1370	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.85 [0.73, 0.99]

2.1 Open lung ventilation including recruitment manoeuvres	4	1260	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.88 [0.75, 1.03]
2.2 Recruitment manoeuvres	1	110	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.62 [0.39, 0.98]
3 In‐hospital mortality Show forest plot	4	1313	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.88 [0.77, 1.01]

3.1 Open lung ventilation including recruitment manoeuvres	3	1203	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.90 [0.78, 1.04]
3.2 Recruitment manoeuvres	1	110	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.74 [0.50, 1.09]
4 Rate of barotrauma Show forest plot	7	1508	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.09 [0.78, 1.51]

4.1 Open lung ventilation including recruitment manoeuvres	6	1398	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.09 [0.78, 1.51]
4.2 Recruitment manoeuvres	1	110	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5 Use of rescue therapies Show forest plot	3	1060	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.64 [0.27, 1.51]

6 PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio at 24 to 48 hours Show forest plot	6	1270	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐39.10 [‐57.64, ‐20.56]

6.1 Open lung ventilation including recruitment manoeuvres	5	1160	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐44.76 [‐66.29, ‐23.22]
6.2 Recruitment manoeuvres	1	110	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐17.0 [‐37.19, 3.19]

Comparison 1. Recruitment manoeuvres versus no recruitment manoeuvres

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

The Cochrane Library

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Maniobras de reexpansión para adultos con síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda sometidos a asistencia respiratoria mecánica

Información