Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10553/108030
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorModesto i Alapont, V.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMedina Villanueva, A.en_US
dc.contributor.authordel Villar Guerra, P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorCamilo, C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFernández Ureña, Sergioen_US
dc.contributor.authorGordo-Vidal, F.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKhemani, R.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-28T14:04:27Z-
dc.date.available2021-06-28T14:04:27Z-
dc.date.issued2021en_US
dc.identifier.issn0210-5691en_US
dc.identifier.otherScopus-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10553/108030-
dc.description.abstractObjective: The “Open Lung Approach” (OLA), that includes high levels of positive end-expiratory pressure coupled with limited tidal volumes, is considered optimal for adult patients with ARDS. However, many previous meta-analyses have shown only marginal benefits of OLA on mortality but with statistical heterogeneity. It is crucial to identify the most likely moderators of this effect. To determine the effect of OLA strategy on mortality of ventilated ARDS patients. We hypothesized that the degree of recruitment achieved in the control group (PaO2/FiO2 ratio on day 3 of ventilation), and the difference in Mechanical Power (MP) or Driving Pressure (DP) between experimental and control groups will be the most likely sources of heterogeneity. Design: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO database. We searched only for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). GRADE guidelines were used for rating the quality of evidence. Publication bias was assessed. For the Meta-analysis, we used a Random Effects Model. Sources of heterogeneity were explored with Meta-Regression, using a priori proposed set of possible moderators. For model comparison, Akaike's Information Criterion with the finite sample correction (AICc) was used. Setting: Not applicable. Patients: Fourteen RCTs were included in the study. Interventions: Not applicable. Main variables of interest: Not applicable. Results: Evidence of publication bias was detected, and quality of evidence was downgraded. Pooled analysis did not show a significant difference in the 28-day mortality between OLA strategy and control groups. Overall risk of bias was low. The analysis detected statistical heterogeneity. The two “best” explicative meta-regression models were those that used control PaO2/FiO2 on day 3 and difference in MP between experimental and control groups. The DP and MP models were highly correlated. Conclusions: There is no clear benefit of OLA strategy on mortality of ARDS patients, with significant heterogeneity among RCTs. Mortality effect of OLA is mediated by lung recruitment and mechanical power.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.relation.ispartofMedicina Intensivaen_US
dc.sourceMedicina Intensiva [ISSN 0210-5691], v. 45(9), p. 516-531, (Diciembre 2021)en_US
dc.subject32 Ciencias médicasen_US
dc.subject320508 Enfermedades pulmonaresen_US
dc.subject241117 Fisiología de la respiraciónen_US
dc.subject.otherAcute Respiratory Distress Syndromeen_US
dc.subject.otherLung Recruitmenten_US
dc.subject.otherMechanical Poweren_US
dc.subject.otherOpen Lungen_US
dc.subject.otherPositive End-Expiratory Pressureen_US
dc.titleOLA strategy for ARDS: Its effect on mortality depends on achieved recruitment (PaO2/FiO2) and mechanical power. Systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regressionen_US
dc.title.alternativeEstrategia OLA para el SDRA: su efecto en la mortalidad depende del reclutamiento alcanzado (PaO2/FiO2) y la potencia mecánica. Revisión sistemática y metaanálisis con metarregresiónen_US
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/Articleen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.medin.2021.03.016en_US
dc.identifier.scopus85108236623-
dc.contributor.orcidNO DATA-
dc.contributor.orcidNO DATA-
dc.contributor.orcidNO DATA-
dc.contributor.orcidNO DATA-
dc.contributor.orcidNO DATA-
dc.contributor.orcidNO DATA-
dc.contributor.orcidNO DATA-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid7801671229-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid6602615785-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid55489897500-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid36955044500-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid37033876400-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid6603435061-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid24343841000-
dc.identifier.eissn1578-6749-
dc.investigacionCiencias de la Saluden_US
dc.type2Artículoen_US
dc.utils.revisionen_US
dc.date.coverdateEnero 2021en_US
dc.identifier.ulpgcen_US
dc.contributor.buulpgcBU-MEDen_US
dc.description.sjr0,333
dc.description.jcr2,799
dc.description.sjrqQ2
dc.description.jcrqQ3
dc.description.scieSCIE
dc.description.miaricds11,0
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.fulltextSin texto completo-
crisitem.author.fullNameFernández Ureña, Sergio-
Appears in Collections:Artículos
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

6
checked on Nov 17, 2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

3
checked on Nov 17, 2024

Page view(s)

72
checked on Aug 31, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Share



Export metadata



Items in accedaCRIS are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.