Key performance indicators in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO): protocol for a systematic review

Introduction Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is an intervention used in critically ill patients with severe cardiopulmonary failure that is expensive and resource intensive and requires specialised care. There remains a significant practice variation in its application. This systematic review will assess the evidence for key performance indicators (KPIs) in ECMO.Methods and analysis We will search Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and the Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and databases from the National Information Center of Health Services Research and Health Care Technology, for studies involving KPIs in ECMO. We will rate methodological quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will be evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and qualitative studies will be evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN checklist). Grey literature sources will be searched for technical reports, practice guidelines and conference proceedings. We will identify relevant organisations, industry leaders and non-profit organisations that represent key opinion leads in the use of ECMO. We will search the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality National Quality Measures Clearinghouse for ECMO-related KPIs. Studies will be included if they contain quality measures that occur in critically ill patients and are associated with ECMO. The analysis will be primarily descriptive. Each KPI will be evaluated for importance, scientific acceptability, utility and feasibility using the four criteria proposed by the US Strategic Framework Board for a National Quality Measurement and Reporting System. Finally, KPIs will be evaluated for their potential operational characteristics, their potential to be integrated into electronic medical records and their affordability, if applicable.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required as no primary data will be collected. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at academic.PROSPERO registration number 9 August 2022. CRD42022349910

Association of different positive end-expiratory pressure selection strategies with all-cause mortality in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

Abstract Background The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has high morbidity and mortality. Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is commonly used in patients with ARDS but the best method to select the optimal PEEP level and reduce all-cause mortality is unclear. The primary objective of this network meta-analysis is to summarize the available evidence and to compare the effect of different PEEP selection strategies on all-cause mortality in adult patients with ARDS. Methods We will search MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, and LILACS from inception onwards for randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of PEEP selection strategies in adult patients with moderate to severe ARDS. We will exclude studies that did not use a lung-protective ventilation approach as part of the comparator or intervention strategy. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality (at the longest available follow-up and up to 90 days). Secondary outcomes will include barotrauma, ventilator-free days, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and changes in oxygenation. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and extract study-data. We will assess the risk of bias for each of the outcomes using version 2 of the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials. If feasible, Bayesian network meta-analyses will be conducted to obtain pooled estimates of all potential head-to-head comparisons. We will report pairwise and network meta-analysis treatment effect estimates as risk ratios and risk differences, together with the associated 95% credible intervals. We will assess certainty in effect estimates using GRADE methodology. Discussion The present study will inform clinical decision-making for adult patients with ARDS and will improve our understanding of the limitations of the available literature assessing PEEP selection strategies. Finally, this information may also inform the design of future randomized trials, including the selection of interventions, comparators, and predictive enrichment strategies. Trial registration PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020193302

Association of PEEP and Lung Recruitment Selection Strategies with Mortality in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

none22Rationale: The most beneficial positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) selection strategy in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is unknown and current practice is variable. Objectives: To compare the relative effects of different PEEP selection strategies on mortality in adults with moderate to severe ARDS. Methods: We conducted a network meta-analysis using a Bayesian framework. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE methodology. Results: We included 18 randomized trials (4646 participants). In comparison to a lower PEEP strategy, the posterior probability of mortality benefit from a higher PEEP without lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) strategy was 99% (RR 0.77, 95% Crl 0.60-0.96, high certainty), the posterior probability of benefit of the Pes-guided strategy was 87% (RR 0.77, 95% CrI 0.48-1.22, moderate certainty), the posterior probability of benefit of a higher PEEP with brief LRM strategy was 96% (RR 0.83, 95% CrI 0.67-1.02, moderate certainty), and the posterior probability of increased mortality from a higher PEEP with prolonged LRM strategy was 77% (RR 1.06, 95% Crl 0.89-1.22, low certainty). In comparison to a higher PEEP without LRM strategy, the posterior probability of increased mortality from a higher PEEP with prolonged LRM strategy was 99% (RR 1.37, 95% CrI 1.04-1.81, moderate certainty). Conclusions and relevance: In patients with moderate to severe ARDS, higher PEEP without LRM is associated with a lower risk of death as compared to lower PEEP. A higher PEEP with prolonged LRM strategy is associated with increased risk of death when compared to higher PEEP without LRM.noneDianti, Jose; Tisminetzky, Manuel; Ferreyro, Bruno L; Englesakis, Marina; Del Sorbo, Lorenzo; Sud, Sachin; Talmor, Daniel; Ball, Lorenzo; Meade, Maureen; Hodgson, Carol; Beitler, Jeremy R; Sahetya, Sarina; Nichol, Alistair; Fan, Eddy; Rochwerg, Bram; Brochard, Laurent; Slutsky, Arthur S; Ferguson, Niall D; Serpa Neto, Ary; Adhikari, Neill Kj; Angriman, Federico; Goligher, Ewan CDianti, Jose; Tisminetzky, Manuel; Ferreyro, Bruno L; Englesakis, Marina; Del Sorbo, Lorenzo; Sud, Sachin; Talmor, Daniel; Ball, Lorenzo; Meade, Maureen; Hodgson, Carol; Beitler, Jeremy R; Sahetya, Sarina; Nichol, Alistair; Fan, Eddy; Rochwerg, Bram; Brochard, Laurent; Slutsky, Arthur S; Ferguson, Niall D; Serpa Neto, Ary; Adhikari, Neill Kj; Angriman, Federico; Goligher, Ewan