Background: For many years, airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) has been used to manage patients with lung conditions such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, it is still unclear whether APRV improves outcomes in critically ill ARDS patients who have been admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU).Methods: In this study, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were used to compare the efficacy of APRV to traditional modes of mechanical ventilation. RCTs were sourced from PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases (the last dates from August 8, 2019). The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions was used to assess the risk of bias. The relative risk (RR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were then determined. Article types such as observational studies, case reports, animal studies, etc., were excluded from our meta-analysis. In total, the data of 6 RCTs and 360 ARDS patients were examined.Results: Six studies with 360 patients were included, our meta-analysis showed that the mean arterial pressure (MAP) in the APRV group was higher than that in the traditional mechanical ventilation group [MD =2.35, 95% CI = (1.05, 3.64), P=0.0004]. The peak pressure (Ppeak) was also lower in the APRV group with a statistical difference noted [MD =−2.04, 95% CI = (−3.33, −0.75), P=0.002]. Despite this, no significant beneficial effect on the oxygen index (PaO 2 /FiO 2 ) was shown between the two groups [MD =26.24, 95% CI = (−26.50, 78.97), P=0.33]. Compared with conventional mechanical ventilation, APRV significantly improved 28-day mortality [RR =0.66, 95% CI = (0.47, 0.94), P=0.02].Discussion: All the included studies were considered to have an unclear risk of bias. We determined that for critically ill patients with ARDS, the application of APRV is associated with an increase in MAP.Inversely, a reduction of the airway Ppeak and 28-day mortality was recorded. There was no sufficient evidence to support the idea that APRV is superior to conventional mechanical ventilation in improving PaO 2 /FiO 2 .

Background High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy is widely employed in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) patients. However, the techniques for predicting HFNC outcome remain scarce. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched until April 20, 2021. We included the studies that evaluated the potential predictive value of ROX (respiratory rate-oxygenation) index for HFNC outcome. This meta-analysis determined sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic score, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and pooled area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Results We assessed nine studies with 1933 patients, of which 745 patients experienced HFNC failure. This meta-analysis found that sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, diagnostic score, and DOR of ROX index in predicting HFNC failure were 0.67 (95% CI 0.57–0.76), 0.72 (95% CI 0.65–0.78), 2.4 (95% CI 2.0–2.8), 0.46 (95% CI 0.37–0.58), 1.65(95% CI 1.37–1.93), and 5.0 (95% CI 4.0–7.0), respectively. In addition, SROC was 0.75 (95% CI 0.71–0.79). Besides, our subgroup analyses revealed that ROX index had higher sensitivity and specificity for predicting HFNC failure in COVID-19 patients, use the cut-off value > 5, and the acquisition time of other times after receiving HFNC had a greater sensitivity and specificity when compared to 6 h. Conclusions This study demonstrated that ROX index could function as a novel potential marker to identify patients with a higher risk of HFNC failure. However, the prediction efficiency was moderate, and additional research is required to determine the optimal cut-off value and propel acquisition time of ROX index in the future. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021240607.

Background Studies have been carried out to assess the efficacy of high-volume hemofiltration (HVHF) among critically ill patients. However, it is currently unclear whether HVHF is really valuable in critically ill patients. Material/Methods Randomized controlled trials evaluating HVHF for critically ill adult patients were included in this analysis. Three databases were searched up to July 27, 2018. The relative risk (RR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined. Results Twenty-one randomized controlled trials were included in this analysis. Overall, HVHF was associated with lower mortality compared with control measures (RR=0.88, 95% CI=0.81 to 0.96, P =0.004) in critically ill patients. Sub-analysis revealed HVHF reduced mortality in sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome patients, but no similar effect in other diseases. HVHF decreased levels of plasma tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6. The heart rate of the HVHF group after treatment was slower than the control group, while we found higher mean arterial pressure in the HVHF group, but oxygenation index was not significantly different between the two groups. HVHF had no remarkable influence on acute physiological and chronic health evaluation score (APACHE II score) compared with the control group. Conclusions HVHF might be superior to conventional therapy in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUNDAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is an acute progressive respiratory failure characterized by pulmonary oedema, hyaline membrane formation and atelectasis secondary to a variety of lung diseases or extrapulmonary events, such as severe pneumonia, drowning, septic shock and severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). ARDS is one of the common critical diseases in intensive care unit (ICU). According to a large global observational study (LUNG SAFE), 1 the morbidity

Purpose The aim of this study is to investigate the prevention and treatment patterns of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in critically ill patients and to explore the risk factors for DVT in people from Zhejiang Province, China. Materials and methods This study prospectively enrolled patients admitted in intensive care units (ICUs) of 54 hospitals from 09/16/2019 to 01/16/2020. The risk of developing DVT and subsequent prophylaxis was evaluated. The primary outcome was DVT occurrence during ICU hospitalisation. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were performed to determine the risk factors for DVT. Results A total of 940 patients were included in the study. Among 847 patients who received prophylaxis, 635 (75.0%) patients received physical prophylaxis and 199 (23.5%) patients received drug prophylaxis. Fifty-eight (6.2%) patients were diagnosed with DVT after admission to the ICU, and 36 patients were treated with anticoagulants (all patients received low molecular weight heparin [LMWH]). D-dimer levels (OR = 1.256, 95% CI: 1.132–1.990), basic prophylaxis (OR = 0.092, 95% CI: 0.016–0.536), and physical prophylaxis (OR = 0.159, 95% CI: 0.038–0.674) were independently associated with DVT in ICU patients. The short-term survival was similar between DVT and non-DVT patients. Conclusions DVT prophylaxis is widely performed in ICU patients. Prophylaxis is an independent protective factor for DVT occurrence. The most common treatment of DVT patients is LMWH, although it might increase the rate of bleeding. Key messages This is the only multicenter and prospective study of DVT in ICUs in China. d -dimer levels were independently associated with DVT in ICU patients. Prophylaxis was an independent protective factor for DVT occurrence in ICU.