A study of clinical outcomes and prognostic factors associated with invasive mechanical ventilation of patients in non-ICU settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Agarwal, S.; Ray, A.; Anand, A.; Chopra, N.; Narayan, A.; Keri, V.; Roy, D. B.; Jadon, R. S.; Vikram, N. K.
Show abstract
There is paucity of evidence related to mechanical ventilation in the general ward setting. We aimed to study the clinico-etiological profile, outcomes and prognostic factors of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in non-ICU (ward) setting, and compare these parameters with that of patients in the ICU, wherever it was reported. A systematic review and meta-analysis was done on articles published till June 2020. Two authors independently extracted the data. The study population included patients who received mechanical ventilation in ward setting. Fourteen studies reporting on 20833 patients were included (20252 exclusively ventilated in ward), with most of the studies being from Israel, USA, Japan and Taiwan. Risk of bias was estimated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies, and was found to be low. Most common reason for intubation was respiratory illness. Most common variables predicting mortality were prognostic scores like APACHE-II and Acute Physiology Score (APS). Pooled mortality rate in ward across 6 studies was 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.74) with no heterogeneity among these 6 studies (I2=0.0). Mortality rate varied significantly with study population characteristics, and was lower among patients being weaned in ward. A major limitation of our study was the paucity of studies and significant heterogeneity among existing studies, with respect to outcomes like duration of ventilation, hospital stay, rates of complications, and prognostic factors. This systematic review and meta-analysis found that mortality among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in ward settings remains high. Data regarding other outcomes and prognostic factors predicting mortality was very heterogeneous highlighting the need for future studies concentrating specifically on these aspects. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO 2020 (CRD42020166775)
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Helmet noninvasive ventilation for COVID-19 patients (Helmet-COVID): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial 95%
- The COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium observational study: Design and rationale of a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study 94%
- Safety and feasibility of lung biopsy in diagnosis of acute respiratory distress syndrome: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- COVID-19 ICU and mechanical ventilation patient characteristics and outcomes - A systematic review and meta-analysis 97%
- Can we predict the severe course of COVID-19 – a systematic review and meta-analysis of indicators of clinical outcome? 95%
- Observational study of changes in utilization and outcomes in non-invasive ventilation in COVID-19 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Optimised oxygenation improves functional capacity during daily activities in patients with COPD on long-term oxygen therapy – a randomised crossover trial 91%
- Adrenaline (epinephrine) compared to selective beta-2-agonist in adults or children with acute asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis 90%
- Post-viral parenchymal lung disease following COVID-19 and viral pneumonitis hospitalisation: A systematic review and meta-analysis 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical characteristics and outcomes of adult patients admitted with COVID-19 in East London: a retrospective cohort analysis 93%
- Two-way remote monitoring allows effective and realistic provision of home-NIV to COPD patients with persistent hypercapnia 91%
- The Impact Of The COVID-19 Pandemic On Non-COVID-19 Community-Acquired Pneumonia, A Retrospective Cohort Study 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.