Respiratory failure & ventilation
Inhaled nitric oxide for acute respiratory distress syndrome in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Pooled result · Low certaintyResult — go to the resultRelative risk 1.07 95% CI 0.93–1.23Authors' conclusion
Although iNO may improve oxygenation slightly, it may not confer survival or other patient-centered benefits and may increase the need for RRT.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)
- Participants
- 1,302 adults · 11 RCTs
- Comparison
- Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) added to standard care vs standard care
- Outcome
- Mortality at the longest follow-up
- Follow-up
- Longest
Methodological detailsrandom-effects model, Cochrane RoB 2, GRADE
- Random-effects model
- Cochrane RoB 2
- GRADE
Pooled result
Low certainty
Relative risk
1.07
95% CI 0.93–1.23
iNO vs Standard care
RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.93–1.23)
As reported in the abstract
Further pooled results
| Outcome | Mean difference (mmHg) (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| PaO2/FiO2 ratioI2 = 0%; low certainty | 15.03 (6.19–23.86) | |
| −100102030Difference, mmHg (linear scale) |
| Outcome | RR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| ECMO useI2 = 45%; very low certainty | 0.45 (0.10–2.17) | |
| 0.10.31310Relative risk (log scale) |
Other secondary outcomes
- No clear differences observed
Reintubation
- No study reported data
Safety
| Outcome | RR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Need for RRTI2 = 0%; low certainty | 1.56 (1.17–2.08) | |
| 0.512Relative risk (log scale) |
Original publication
Inhaled nitric oxide for acute respiratory distress syndrome in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Intensive Care. Published 2 January 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →