RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In patients with acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), mortality remains high. These patients require mechanical ventilation, which has been associated with ventilator-induced lung injury. High levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) could reduce this condition and improve patient survival. This is an updated version of the review first published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of high versus low levels of PEEP in adults with ALI and ARDS. SEARCH METHODS: For our previous review, we searched databases from inception until 2013. For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and the Web of Science from inception until May 2020. We also searched for ongoing trials (www.trialscentral.org; www.clinicaltrial.gov; www.controlled-trials.com), and we screened the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared high versus low levels of PEEP in ALI and ARDS participants who were intubated and mechanically ventilated in intensive care for at least 24 hours. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently. We contacted investigators to identify additional published and unpublished studies. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included four new studies (1343 participants) in this review update. In total, we included 10 studies (3851 participants). We found evidence of risk of bias in six studies, and the remaining studies fulfilled all criteria for low risk of bias. In eight studies (3703 participants), a comparison was made between high and low levels of PEEP, with the same tidal volume in both groups. In the remaining two studies (148 participants), the tidal volume was different between high- and low-level groups. In the main analysis, we assessed mortality occurring before hospital discharge only in studies that compared high versus low PEEP, with the same tidal volume in both groups. Evidence suggests that high PEEP may result in little to no difference in mortality compared to low PEEP (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.04; I² = 15%; 7 studies, 3640 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In addition, high PEEP may result in little to no difference in barotrauma (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.57; I² = 63%; 9 studies, 3791 participants; low-certainty evidence). High PEEP may improve oxygenation in patients up to the first and third days of mechanical ventilation (first day: mean difference (MD) 51.03, 95% CI 35.86 to 66.20; I² = 85%; 6 studies, 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; third day: MD 50.32, 95% CI 34.92 to 65.72; I² = 83%; 6 studies, 2309 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably improves oxygenation up to the seventh day (MD 28.52, 95% CI 20.82 to 36.21; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 1611 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence suggests that high PEEP results in little to no difference in the number of ventilator-free days (MD 0.45, 95% CI -2.02 to 2.92; I² = 81%; 3 studies, 1654 participants; low-certainty evidence). Available data were insufficient to pool the evidence for length of stay in the intensive care unit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence shows that high levels compared to low levels of PEEP do not reduce mortality before hospital discharge. Low-certainty evidence suggests that high levels of PEEP result in little to no difference in the risk of barotrauma. Low-certainty evidence also suggests that high levels of PEEP improve oxygenation up to the first and third days of mechanical ventilation, and moderate-certainty evidence indicates that high levels of PEEP improve oxygenation up to the seventh day of mechanical ventilation. As in our previous review, we found clinical heterogeneity - mainly within participant characteristics and methods of titrating PEEP - that does not allow us to draw definitive conclusions regarding the use of high levels of PEEP in patients with ALI and ARDS. Further studies should aim to determine the appropriate method of using high levels of PEEP and the advantages and disadvantages associated with high levels of PEEP in different ARDS and ALI patient populations.
Assuntos
Respiração com Pressão Positiva/métodos , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/terapia , Lesão Pulmonar Induzida por Ventilação Mecânica/terapia , Doença Aguda , Adulto , Viés , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Tempo de Internação , Consumo de Oxigênio , Respiração com Pressão Positiva/mortalidade , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/mortalidade , Volume de Ventilação Pulmonar , Lesão Pulmonar Induzida por Ventilação Mecânica/mortalidadeRESUMO
The effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on an experimental model of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) was evaluated in this study. 24 adult Wistar rats were randomized into four groups: protective mechanical ventilation (PMV), PMV + laser, VILI and VILI + laser. The animals of the PMV and VILI groups were ventilated with tidal volumes of 6 and 35 ml kg-1, respectively, for 90 minutes. After the first 60 minutes of ventilation, the animals in the laser groups were irradiated (808 nm, 100 mW power density, 20 J cm-2 energy density, continuous emission mode, and exposure time of 5 s) and after 30 minutes of irradiation, the animals were euthanized. Lung samples were removed for morphological analysis, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and real time quantitative polynucleotide chain reaction (RT-qPCR). The VILI group showed a greater acute lung injury (ALI) score with an increase in neutrophil infiltration, higher neutrophil count in the BAL fluid and greater cytokine mRNA expression compared to the PMV groups (p < 0.05). The VILI + laser group when compared to the VILI group showed a lower ALI score (0.35 ± 0.08 vs. 0.54 ± 0.13, p < 0.05), alveolar neutrophil infiltration (7.00 ± 5.73 vs. 21.50 ± 9.52, p < 0.05), total cell count (1.90 ± 0.71 vs. 4.09 ± 0.96 × 105, p < 0.05) and neutrophil count in the BAL fluid (0.60 ± 0.37 vs. 2.28 ± 0.48 × 105, p < 0.05). Moreover, LLLT induced a decrease in pro-inflammatory and an increase of anti-inflammatory mRNA levels compared to the VILI group (p < 0.05). In conclusion, LLLT was found to reduce the inflammatory response in an experimental model of VILI.
Assuntos
Modelos Animais de Doenças , Inflamação/terapia , Terapia com Luz de Baixa Intensidade , Lesão Pulmonar Induzida por Ventilação Mecânica/terapia , Animais , Masculino , Ratos , Ratos WistarRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Mortality in patients with acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains high. These patients require mechanical ventilation, but this modality has been associated with ventilator-induced lung injury. High levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) could reduce this condition and improve patient survival. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of high versus low levels of PEEP in patients with ALI and ARDS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2013, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to May 2013), EMBASE (1982 to May 2013), LILACS (1982 to May 2013) and SCI (Science Citation Index). We used the Science Citation Index to find references that have cited the identified trials. We did not specifically conduct manual searches of abstracts of conference proceedings for this review. We also searched for ongoing trials (www.trialscentral.org; www.clinicaltrial.gov and www.controlled-trials.com). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of two levels of PEEP in ALI and ARDS participants who were intubated and mechanically ventilated in intensive care for at least 24 hours. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed the trial quality and extracted data independently. We contacted investigators to identify additional published and unpublished studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies that compared high versus low levels of PEEP (2565 participants). In five of the studies (2417 participants), a comparison was made between high and low levels of PEEP with the same tidal volume in both groups, but in the remaining two studies (148 participants), the tidal volume was different between high- and low-level groups. We saw evidence of risk of bias in three studies, and the remaining studies fulfilled all criteria for adequate trial quality.In the main analysis, we assessed mortality occurring before hospital discharge only in those studies that compared high versus low PEEP with the same tidal volume in both groups. With the three studies that were included, the meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between the two groups (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.01), nor was any statistically significant difference seen in the risk of barotrauma (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.42). Oxygenation was improved in the high-PEEP group, although data derived from the studies showed a considerable degree of statistical heterogeneity. The number of ventilator-free days showed no significant difference between the two groups. Available data were insufficient to allow pooling of length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). The subgroup of participants with ARDS showed decreased mortality in the ICU, although it must be noted that in two of the three included studies, the authors used a protective ventilatory strategy involving a low tidal volume and high levels of PEEP. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence indicates that high levels of PEEP, as compared with low levels, did not reduce mortality before hospital discharge. The data also show that high levels of PEEP produced no significant difference in the risk of barotrauma, but rather improved participants' oxygenation to the first, third, and seventh days. This review indicates that the included studies were characterized by clinical heterogeneity.
Assuntos
Respiração com Pressão Positiva/métodos , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/terapia , Lesão Pulmonar Induzida por Ventilação Mecânica/terapia , Doença Aguda , Adulto , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Tempo de Internação , Consumo de Oxigênio , Respiração com Pressão Positiva/mortalidade , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/mortalidade , Lesão Pulmonar Induzida por Ventilação Mecânica/mortalidadeRESUMO
Recent data suggest that deep hypothermia has protective effects on experimental induced lung injury. It is not well known if these effects persist with mild hypothermia. The authors hypothesized that mild hypothermia may attenuate lung injury and decrease local and systemic proinflammatory cytokines in a rat model of injurious mechanical ventilation (MV). Twelve Sprague-Dawley male adult rats were anesthetized, intubated, and randomly allocated to normothermia group (37°C) (NT) or mild hypothermia group (34°C) (MH). After 2 hours of deleterious MV (peak inspiratory pressure [PIP] 40 cm H(2)O, zero end-expiratory pressure [ZEEP], and inspiratory fraction of oxygen [Fio(2)] 100%), arterial blood gases, lung gravimetry, and histological study were obtained. Protein content, interleukin (IL)-1ß, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α were measured in plasma and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid. Subjects that underwent MH had a significant lower wet-to-dry lung weight ratio (8.32 ± 0.28 vs. 10.8 ± 0.49, P = .01), IL-1ß plasma concentration (0.6 ± 0.6 vs. 10.27 ± 2.80 pg/mL, P = .0048) and PaCO(2). There were no differences in terms of PaO(2), histological injury, or BAL protein content. In this model of injurious mechanical ventilation, subjects treated with mild hypothermia had less lung edema and lower plasma IL-1ß. Some of known beneficial effects of deep hypothermia can be obtained with mild hypothermia.