Lung Recruitment Maneuvers for Adult Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), lung recruitment maneuvers (LRMs) may prevent ventilator-induced lung injury and improve survival. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the current evidence in support of the use of LRMs in adult patients with ARDS and to inform the recently published American Thoracic Society/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Society of Critical Care Medicine clinical practice guideline on mechanical ventilation in ARDS. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing mechanical ventilation strategies with and without LRMs. Eligible trials were identified from among previously published systematic reviews and an updated literature search. Data on 28-day mortality, oxygenation, adverse events, and use of rescue therapy were collected, and results were pooled using random effects models weighted by inverse variance. Strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. RESULTS: We screened 430 citations and previous systematic reviews and found six trials eligible for inclusion (n = 1,423 patients in total). The type of LRM varied widely between trials, and five of the trials involved a cointervention with a higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) ventilation strategy. Risk of bias was deemed high in one trial. In the primary analysis, the only trial without a cointervention showed that LRMs were associated with reduced mortality (one trial; risk ratio [RR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.98; evidence grade = low). Meta-analysis of all six trials also suggested a significant mortality reduction (six trials; RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95; evidence grade = moderate), and the use of a higher PEEP cointervention did not significantly modify the mortality effect (P = 0.27 for heterogeneity). LRMs were also associated with improved oxygenation after 24 hours (six trials; mean increase, 52 mm Hg; 95% CI, 23-81 mm Hg) and less frequent requirement for rescue therapy (three trials; RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.94). LRMs were not associated with an increased rate of barotrauma (four trials; RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.46-1.55). The rate of hemodynamic compromise was not significantly increased with LRMs (three trials; RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.92-1.78). CONCLUSIONS: Randomized trials suggest that LRMs in combination with a higher PEEP ventilation strategy reduce mortality, but confidence in this finding is limited. Further trials are required to confirm benefit from LRMs in adults with ARDS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".