Respiratory failure & ventilation
Determination of positive end-expiratory pressure in COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: A systematic review
Authors' conclusion
The available evidence does not provide sufficient guidance for recommendations on optimal PEEP settings in C-ARDS.
Study context
- Population
- Ventilated adults (≧18 years) with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (C-ARDS)12 studies, no RCT
- Participants
- 1,431 adults
- Comparison
- Higher vs lower positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP); individually titrated vs standardised PEEP
- Outcome
- Lower vs higher PEEP strategies in C-ARDS
Methodological detailsSearched CCSR, PubMed, Embase.com, Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 database, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), medRxiv, CENTRAL until 24/01/2024; 16 026 records screened, 119 full texts evaluated
- Searched CCSR, PubMed, Embase.com, Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 database, ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL until 24/01/2024; 16 026 records screened, 119 full texts evaluated
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
- Results ambiguous: either positive effects on oxygenation with high PEEP, or negative changes in lung mechanics
- Heterogeneity of study procedures and populations precluded meta-analysis
Original publication
Determination of positive end-expiratory pressure in COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: A systematic review. Eur J Anaesthesiol Intensive Care. Published 4 October 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →