Use of noninvasive ventilation in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory failure (ARF) remains a common hazardous complication in immunocompromised patients and is associated with increased mortality rates when endotracheal intubation is needed. We aimed to evaluate the effect of early noninvasive ventilation (NIV) compared with oxygen therapy alone in this patient population. METHODS: We searched for relevant studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database up to 25 July 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they reported data on any of the predefined outcomes in immunocompromised patients managed with NIV or oxygen therapy alone. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Five RCTs with 592 patients were included. Early NIV significantly reduced short-term mortality (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.97, p = 0.04) and intubation rate (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.85, p = 0.01) when compared with oxygen therapy alone, with significant heterogeneity in these two outcomes between the pooled studies. In addition, early NIV was associated with a shorter length of ICU stay (MD -1.71 days, 95% CI -2.98 to 1.44, p = 0.008) but not long-term mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.15, p = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: The limited evidence indicates that early use of NIV could reduce short-term mortality in selected immunocompromised patients with ARF. Further studies are needed to identify in which selected patients NIV could be more beneficial, before wider application of this ventilator strategy.

N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide for predicting fluid challenge in patients with septic shock.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to examine whether plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentration could predict fluid responsiveness in septic shock patients following fluid challenge (FC). METHODS: We reviewed prospectively collected data from 79 septic shock patients who received invasive cardiac output (CO) monitoring following a 500 mL FC. Haemodynamics were recorded, and blood sampling for NT-proBNP values was performed. Patients were divided into responders and non-responders according to fluid responsiveness, which was defined as cardiac index (CI) increase ≥10% induced by FC. The NT-proBNP and the CI changes were analysed using Pearson correlation. The area under the curve (AUC) for NT-proBNP was used to test its ability to distinguish responders and non-responders. Subgroup analyses were also explored. RESULTS: Among 79 patients, there were 55 responders. High NT-proBNP values were common in the study cohort. Baseline NT-proBNP values were comparable between responders and non-responders. In general, NT-proBNP values were not significantly correlated with CI changes after FC (r=-0.104, P=0.361). Similarly, the NT-proBNP baseline values could not identify responders to FC with an AUC of 0.508 (95% confidence interval, 0.369-0.647). This result was further confirmed in the subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline NT-proBNP concentration value may not serve as an indicator of fluid responsiveness in patients with septic shock and should not be an indicator to withhold fluid loading.

High-flow oxygen therapy in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: A review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Acute respiratory failure remains a common hazardous complication in immunocompromised patients and is associated with increased mortality rates when endotracheal intubation is need. We aimed to evaluate the effect of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) compared with other oxygen technique for this patient population. METHODS: We searched Cochrane library, Embase, PubMed databases before Aug. 15, 2017 for eligible articles. A meta-analysis was performed for measuring short-term mortality (defined as ICU, hospital or 28-days mortality) and intubation rate as the primary outcomes, and length of stay in ICU as the secondary outcome. RESULTS: We included seven studies involving 667 patients. Use of HFNC was significantly association with a reduction in short-term mortality (RR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.84, p=0.0007) and intubation rate (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.90; p=0.002). In addition, HFNC did not significant increase length of stay in ICU (MD 0.15days; 95% CI, -2.08 to 2.39; p=0.89). CONCLUSIONS: The results of current meta-analysis suggest that use of HFNC significantly improve outcomes of acute respiratory failure in immunocompromised patients. Owing to the quality of the included studies, further adequately powered randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our results.

Video Laryngoscopy for Endotracheal Intubation of Critically Ill Adults: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal intubation (EI) in ICU patients is associated with an increased risk of life-threatening adverse events due to unstable conditions, rapid deterioration, limited preparation time, and variability in the expertise of operators. The goal of this study was to compare the effect of video laryngoscopy (VL) and direct laryngoscopy (DL) in ICU patients requiring EI. METHODS: We searched for relevant studies in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database from inception through January 30, 2017. Randomized controlled trials were included if they reported data on any of the predefined outcomes in ICU patients requiring EI and managed with VL or DL. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) with accompanying 95% CIs. RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials with 1,301 patients were included. Despite better glottic visualization with VL (RR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.43; P = .003), use of VL did not result in a significant increase in the first-attempt success rate (RR = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.92-1.26; P = .35) compared with DL. In addition, time to intubation (MD = 4.12 s; 95% CI, -15.86-24.09; P = .69), difficult intubation (RR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.30-1.70; P = .45), mortality (RR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.84-1.25; P = .83), and most other complications were similar between the VL and DL groups. CONCLUSIONS: The VL technique did not increase the first-attempt success rate during EI in ICU patients compared with DL. These findings do not support routine use of VL in ICU patients.