Effect of different durations of prone ventilation on the efficacy of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a small Meta-analysis
10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20231108-00958
- VernacularTitle:不同持续时间俯卧位通气对急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者疗效的影响
- Author:
Juan HE
1
;
Ying LIU
;
Lu LI
;
Jinfeng YANG
;
Xijing ZHANG
;
Qimin CHEN
;
Jiaoyangzi LIU
;
Feng SHEN
Author Information
1. 贵州医科大学附属医院重症医学科，贵阳 550004
- Keywords:
Acute respiratory distress syndrome;
Prone ventilation;
Mortality;
Adverse event;
Meta-analysis
- From:
Chinese Critical Care Medicine
2024;36(5):508-513
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To systematically evaluate the effect of different durations of prone ventilation on the efficacy of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).Methods:A computer search was conducted in databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and China Biomedical Literature Database for studies on prone ventilation for the treatment of adult patients with ARDS published from the establishment of the database to September 2023. Studies were categorized into ≤24 hours group and > 24 hours group based on the duration of prone ventilation. Outcome indicators included mortality, the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, incidence of pressure ulcers, and operation of tracheotomy. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted information, and evaluated the risk of bias of the included literature. The quality of the included literature was assessed using the NOS scale, and the effect of different durations of prone ventilation on the efficacy of ARDS was analyzed by Meta-analysis.Results:A total of 517 patients from 4 papers were finally included, including 249 patients with prone ventilation duration ≤24 hours and 268 patients with prone ventilation duration > 24 hours. All 4 studies were cohort studies, and the overall inclusion of literature assessed for methodological quality indicated high study quality and low risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed that there were no significantly differences in mortality [relative risk ( RR) = 1.02, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was 0.79 to 1.31, P = 0.88], the length of ICU stay [mean difference ( MD) = -2.68, 95% CI was -5.30 to - 0.05, P = 0.05] between the prone ventilation duration ≤ 24 hours group and prone ventilation duration > 24 hours group. Compared with the prone ventilation duration ≤24 hours group, the incidence of pressure ulcers ( RR = 0.76, 95% CI was 0.59 to 0.98, P = 0.04) and the operation of tracheotomy ( RR = 0.71, 95% CI was 0.53 to 0.94, P = 0.02) were significantly increased in the prone ventilation duration > 24 hours group. Conclusions:The duration of prone ventilation had no significant effect on the mortality and the length of ICU stay in ARDS patients, but prone ventilation for > 24 hours increased the incidence of pressure ulcers and the operation of tracheotomy, which still needs to be further verified by a large number of studies due to the small number of included studies.
