Schunemann, Holger J, Khabsa, Joanne, Solo, Karla, Khamis, Assem M, Brignardello-Petersen, Romina, El-Harakeh, Amena, Darzi, Andrea, Hajizadeh, Anisa, Bognanni, Antonio, Bak, Anna et al (show 40 more authors)
(2020)
Ventilation Techniques and Risk for Transmission of Coronavirus Disease, Including COVID-19 A Living Systematic Review of Multiple Streams of Evidence.
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 173 (3).
204-+.
|
Text
Ventilation Techniques and Risk for Transmission of Coronavirus Disease, Including COVID-19 A Living Systematic Review of Mu.pdf - Published version Download (187kB) | Preview |
Abstract
<h4>Background</h4>Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).<h4>Purpose</h4>To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19.<h4>Data sources</h4>21 standard, World Health Organization-specific and COVID-19-specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020.<h4>Study selection</h4>Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included.<h4>Data extraction</h4>Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews).<h4>Data synthesis</h4>123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very-low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs.<h4>Limitation</h4>Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers.<h4>Primary funding source</h4>World Health Organization. (PROSPERO: CRD42020178187).
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Animals, Humans, Pneumonia, Viral, Coronavirus Infections, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, Aerosols, Respiration, Artificial, World Health Organization, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Pandemics, Betacoronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 |
| Divisions: | Faculty of Health and Life Sciences Faculty of Health and Life Sciences > Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences |
| Depositing User: | Symplectic Admin |
| Date Deposited: | 17 Jun 2021 13:37 |
| Last Modified: | 02 Sep 2023 03:06 |
| DOI: | 10.7326/M20-2306 |
| Related URLs: | |
| URI: | https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/3126734 |
Dimensions
Dimensions
