An official website of the United States government
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
CADTH Health Technology Review
Authors; Keeley Farrell, and Jennifer Horton.
Acute respiratory distress syndrome is a life-threatening condition resulting from fluid buildup in the lungs leading to an acute, widespread, inflammatory lung injury.1 The condition has a variety of causes including pneumonia, aspiration, sepsis, pancreatitis, and trauma,1 and main symptoms are severe shortness of breath and rapid breathing.2 Acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with high mortality rates ranging from 35% to 46% depending on the severity of lung injury at onset.1 The incidence rate in Canada was estimated to be 27.6 cases per 100,000 person-years from October 2010 to December 2012.3,4
Treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome is generally supportive and can include mechanical ventilation, prevention of complications such as venous thromboembolism, and nutritional support, while addressing the underlying cause of the condition.3 Mild cases of acute respiratory distress syndrome may respond to noninvasive ventilation; however, most patients require sedation, intubation, and ventilation.3 A range of mechanical ventilation strategies can be used to treat patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. These can include pressure-controlled ventilation, volume-controlled ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, low tidal volume ventilation, and airway pressure release ventilation.5,6
Airway pressure release ventilation is a mechanical ventilation mode that uses continuous positive airway pressure to maintain adequate lung volume and a time cycled release phase to aid with carbon dioxide removal.5,7 It was introduced to improve oxygenation and potentially decrease the incidence of barotrauma (injury to the body due to change in air pressure), and could have a role in preventing acute respiratory distress syndrome.7 Patients on airway pressure release ventilation are able to breathe spontaneously throughout both the continuous positive airway pressure and time cycled release phase.5
The aim of the current report is to summarize the clinical evidence and evidence-based guidelines regarding the use of airway pressure release ventilation for patients with or at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome that have been published since the 2018 CADTH report.8
A limited literature search was conducted by an information specialist on key resources including MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the International HTA Database, the websites of Canadian and major international health technology agencies, as well as a focused internet search. The search strategy comprised controlled vocabulary, such as the National Library of Medicine’s MeSH (Medical Subject Headings), and keywords. The main search concepts were airway pressure release ventilation, acute respiratory distress syndrome, intensive care units, and emergency units. No filters were applied to limit the retrieval by study type. Where possible, retrieval was limited to the human population. The search was completed on July 25, 2022 and limited to English-language documents published since January 1, 2017.
One reviewer screened citations and selected studies. In the first level of screening, titles and abstracts were reviewed and potentially relevant articles were retrieved and assessed for inclusion. As an update to a previous CADTH report, articles were included if they were made available since the previous search date and were not included in the 2018 CADTH report.8 The final selection of full-text articles was based on the inclusion criteria presented in Table 1.
Selection Criteria.
Articles were excluded if they did not meet the selection criteria outlined in Table 1, or they were duplicate publications. Systematic reviews in which all relevant studies were captured in more comprehensive systematic reviews were excluded.9 Primary studies retrieved by the search were excluded if they were captured in 1 or more included systematic reviews. Guidelines with unclear methodology were also excluded.
The included publications were critically appraised by 1 reviewer using the following tools as a guide: A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2)10 for systematic reviews, the Downs and Black checklist11 for randomized studies, and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument12 for guidelines. Summary scores were not calculated for the included studies; rather, the strengths and limitations of each included publication were described narratively.
A total of 428 citations were identified in the literature search. Following screening of titles and abstracts, 402 citations were excluded and 26 potentially relevant reports from the electronic search were retrieved for full-text review. One potentially relevant publication was retrieved from the grey literature search for full-text review. Of these potentially relevant articles, 21 publications were excluded for various reasons, and 6 publications met the inclusion criteria and were included in this report. These comprised 3 systematic reviews, 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 1 evidence-based guideline. Appendix 1 presents the PRISMA13 flow chart of the study selection.
In total 3 systematic reviews,14-16 2 RCTs17,18 and 1 guideline19 were included in this report. The 3 systematic reviews14-16 included meta-analyses; however, they all included results from studies that are not relevant to the present report. Therefore, the results of the meta-analyses are not described in this report.
All the systematic reviews included primary studies that were already described in the previous CADTH report8 on this topic (and therefore, are not discussed in the current report). Two of the systematic reviews15,16 did not specify the study settings in the inclusion criteria (i.e., intensive care unit or emergency room) and the study settings for the included studies were not described. Therefore, only studies that included intensive care, unit-related outcomes (i.e., length of intensive care unit stay, mortality in the intensive care unit) were considered relevant to the present report. Only the characteristics and results of the subset of relevant studies will be described in this report.
Additional details regarding the characteristics of included publications are provided in Appendix 2.
The systematic review by Chen et al. (2021)14 included 6 RCTs in total, 4 of which are relevant to the present report. The literature search was conducted up to August 8, 2019 and no restrictions were imposed based on date of publication.14 The systematic review by Sun et al. (2020)15 included 14 studies in total (7 RCTs and 7 retrospective studies), 8 of which are relevant to the present report (5 RCTs, 2 2-arm retrospective studies, and 1 single-arm retrospective study). The literature search was conducted January 23, 2019 and no restrictions were imposed based on date of publication.15 The systematic review by Zhong et al. (2020)16 included 7 RCTs in total, 4 of which are relevant to the present report. The literature search was conducted up to March 2019 and no restrictions were imposed based on date of publication.16
All the systematic reviews14-16 had overlap in their included primary studies. Four primary studies were included in more than 1 systematic review. A citation matrix depicting the overlap between the included systematic reviews is provided in Appendix 5.
Both included RCTs were single-centre studies.17,18 The RCT by Ibarra-Estrada et al. (2022)17 was single-blind (investigators and data analysts were blinded). The RCT by Küçük et al. (2022)18 was open label.
The German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine guideline was published in 2019.19 A systematic literature search was conducted to identify guidelines, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, RCTs, and non-randomized studies.19 The body of evidence for each question was evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. There were 5 categories for quality of evidence ratings (no relevant evidence, very low, low, moderate, high).19 The members of the guideline group voted for or against each recommendation. Each recommendation was assigned a strength based on the quality of evidence and clinical judgment. There were 3 categories of recommendation strength (no recommendation, weak recommendation, strong recommendation).19
All the systematic reviews were conducted by authors from China.14-16 The relevant studies included in the systematic reviews by Chen et al. (2021)14 and Sun et al. (2020)15 were conducted in China, US, Finland, Japan, and Germany. The countries where the included primary studies were conducted were not specified in the systematic review by Zhong et al. (2020).16
The RCT by Ibarra-Estrada et al. (2022)17 was conducted in Mexico. The RCT by Küçük et al. (2022)18 was conducted in Turkey.
The guideline group for the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine guideline19 included scientific societies from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
The systematic review by Chen et al. (2021)14 included studies of critically ill adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome admitted to the intensive care unit. The systematic reviews by Sun et al. (2020)15 and Zhong et al. (2020)16 included studies of adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome and did not specify the settings of the included studies. Therefore, only primary studies with intensive care, unit-related outcomes were considered relevant to the present report.
The RCT by Ibarra-Estrada et al. (2022)17 included adults with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome who had received less than 24 hours of endotracheal mechanical ventilation. The airway pressure release ventilation group consisted of 45 patients (71% male) with a mean age of 55 years and a mean partial pressure of oxygen/ fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio of 140.17 The low tidal volume group consisted of 45 patients (69% male) with a mean age of 57 years and a mean PaO2/FiO2 ratio of 149.17 The RCT by Küçük et al. (2022)18 included patients aged 18 to 85 years who required invasive mechanical ventilation but were not initially diagnosed with acute respiratory distress syndrome and had been staying in the intensive care unit for 24 hours or more. The airway pressure release ventilation group included 32 patients (8 female, 24 male) with a median age of 50 years and a median lung injury prediction score of 8.5.18 The pressure-controlled synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation plus pressure support group included 33 patients (4 female, 29 male) with a median age of 54 years and a median lung injury prediction score of 9.18
The intended users of the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine guideline19 are critical care teams. The target population for the guideline is patients with acute respiratory insufficiency.19 The guideline defines patients with acute respiratory insufficiency as those with acute respiratory distress syndrome as well as patients who require mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal procedures due to acute hypoxemic or hypercapnic respiratory insufficiency.19
All the systematic reviews included primary studies that used airway pressure release ventilation as the intervention.14-16 In the systematic review by Chen et al. (2021),14 the comparators in the relevant primary studies were synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation and pressure-controlled synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation with pressure support.14 For the systematic review by Sun et al. (2020),15 the comparators in the relevant primary studies were low tidal volume ventilation, pressure control ventilation, assist-control ventilation, and synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation.15 The comparators in the relevant primary studies of the systematic review by Zhong et al. (2020)16 were low tidal volume ventilation modes, including volume control ventilation, pressure-control ventilation, and synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation.16
The intervention used in both RCTs was airway pressure release ventilation.17,18 In the RCT by Ibarra-Estrada et al. (2022)17 all patients received a 12-hour stabilization period of protective low tidal volume ventilation. The initial settings on airway pressure release ventilation were as follows: high pressure (inspiratory pressure) had a maximum allowed level of 30 cm H2O; low pressure was set at 0 cm H2O; inspiratory time was initiated at 4 seconds; and expiratory time was set at 0.4 to 0.6 seconds. The expiratory flow termination was maintained between 50% and 75% (of the peak flow).17 The comparator was low tidal volume ventilation.17 The settings were a tidal volume of 6 mL/kg of predicted body weight, with lower limit of 4 mL/kg of predicted body weight in case of plateau pressure greater than 30 cm H2O, and upper limit of 8 mL/ kg of predicted body weight if needed to manage patient-ventilator interactions or acidosis.17
In the RCT by Küçük et al. (2022),18 all patients were ventilated using the conventional method until they could be evaluated. The standard initial settings for airway pressure release ventilation were Thigh (prolonged time)/Tlow (release time) of 4/0.8 seconds. The high pressure was set to plateau airway pressure value (if patient was paralyzed) or mean airway pressure in the previous conventional method as reference.18 Low pressure was always set to 0 cm H2O.18 Tlow range was adjusted as 0.4 seconds to 1.2 seconds.18 The comparator was pressure-controlled synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation with pressure support.18 The pressure level was adjusted to get a tidal volume of 6 to 8 mL/kg of predicted body weight.18 Optimal positive end-expiratory pressure between 5 cm and 10 cm H2O was applied to all patients in the comparator group by titration according to the oxygen requirement.18
The German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine guideline considered mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal gas exchange interventions.19 The relevant recommendation in the guideline was on airway pressure release ventilation and biphasic positive airway pressure, described as “pressure-controlled ventilation with the possibility of spontaneous breathing in the inspiration and expiration phases”.19
The reported outcomes in the included studies were mortality,14-18 length of intensive care unit stay,15-18 oxygenation (PaO2/FiO2),14-16 tracheostomy,15,17,18 ventilator-free days by day-28,16,17 mean arterial pressure,14,16 days of mechanical ventilation,15,17 extubation,17,18 incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome,18 length of hospital stay,18 sedation requirement,18 barotrauma,17 severe hypercapnia,17 and deep vein thrombosis.17
The outcomes considered in the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine guideline were benefits, risks, clinical experience, patient preferences, and mandatory resources required.19
Additional details regarding the strengths and limitations of included publications are provided in Appendix 3.
All the systematic reviews had clear objectives and inclusion criteria that included components of population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes.14-16 None of the systematic review authors stated whether the review methods were established before conducting the review. Without a pre-established protocol, it is unclear how to determine if the methods were adjusted in a way that could introduce bias after the review had begun. All of the literature searches were conducted in multiple databases and the keywords used were provided.14-16 The literature search for the systematic review by Chen et al. (2021)14 had no language restrictions. The authors of the Sun et al. (2020)15 systematic review also searched a trial registry and grey literature. Providing details of these elements of the search strategy increases its reproducibility. Study selection was performed independently by 2 reviewers in all the systematic reviews.14-16 Performing study selection in duplicate helps reduce the risk of bias in study selection. None of the systematic reviews provided a list of the excluded studies; however, they provided the reasons for exclusion in flow charts of study selection.14-16 Unjustified exclusion of studies could bias the results of the review. Data extraction was performed in duplicate in 2 of the systematic reviews.14,16 The authors of the Sun et al. (2020)15 systematic review do not state whether data extraction was performed in duplicate. Performing data extraction in duplicate increases the likelihood of completeness and accuracy of data capture. The populations, interventions, comparators, and outcomes of the included primary studies were described in adequate detail in all the systematic reviews.14-16 None of the systematic reviews specified the time frame for follow-up of the included primary studies. The settings (i.e., whether patients were in the intensive care unit or emergency room) of the included primary studies were not specified in the Sun et al. (2020)15 and Zhong et al. (2020)16 systematic reviews. Additionally, the countries where the included studies were conducted were not specified in the Zhong et al. (2020)16 systematic review. The risk of bias of the included primary studies was assessed using validated tools in all the systematic reviews. However, in the Sun et al. (2020)15 systematic review the results of the risk of bias assessment (e.g., quality ratings) were not provided. All the systematic reviews reported their funding sources and stated that the authors had no conflicts of interest.14-16
The study objective, patient characteristics, interventions, and main findings were clearly described in both RCTs.17,18 The main outcome measures used were valid and reliable, and the statistical tests used were appropriate in both the RCTs. Commonly known adverse events were reported in both studies. Patients were not blind to the intervention they received in either of the RCTs. In the Ibarra-Estrada et al. (2022)17 RCT investigators and data analysts were blind to group allocation. In the Küçük et al. (2022)18 RCT investigators were not blind to group allocation. Objective outcomes such as mortality and length of intensive care unit stay are unlikely to be influenced by blinding. In both RCTs patients from different intervention groups were recruited from the same population. Patients were randomized to intervention groups in a 1:1 ratio using block randomization in both studies.17,18 Randomization aims to balance the distribution of known and unknown confounders between treatment groups. In the Küçük et al. (2022)18 RCT, the investigators conducted a sample size calculation a priori to determine the number of patients to adequately power the study. In the Ibarra-Estrada et al. (2022)17 RCT a sample size calculation was conducted a priori; however, the study did not recruit the required number of patients in each group because the safety monitoring board stopped the trial early due to episodes of barotrauma, higher incidence of hypercapnia, and trends in mortality in the airway pressure release ventilation group.17 Therefore, the RCT did not reach the anticipated power estimated through sample size calculation and it is unclear in the study was sufficiently powered to detect a significant difference between the intervention groups for all outcomes. The statistical analysis did not adjust for multiplicity in either RCT. Adjusting for multiplicity is important for studies that assess multiple outcomes due to the potential inflation of the type I error rate. The authors of the Ibarra-Estrada et al. (2022)17 RCT disclosed their potential conflicts of interest; however, they did not state whether they received any funding for the study. The authors of the Küçük et al. (2022)18 RCT stated that they did not have any conflicts of interest and no funding was received for the study.
The full version of the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine guideline was not available in English and therefore, this critical appraisal is based on a review of the summary document.19 Further detail related to some of the critical appraisal domains may have been provided in the full version of the guidelines.
The objective, health questions covered by the guideline, target population, and target users were clearly described.19 The guideline development group included individuals from relevant professional groups.19 The authors stated that patient preferences were taken into account in making the recommendations; however, details were not provided on how this information was sought. The literature search was conducted in multiple databases, however, other details of the search strategy (e.g., keywords used, number of authors who performed study selection, etc.) were not provided.19 The inclusion and exclusion criteria for selecting evidence were not adequately provided. The strengths and limitations of the body of evidence were discussed. The guideline group voted on recommendations; however, no description is provided of the voting process used and there is no discussion of the alignment between the voting and the final recommendations.19 Both the benefits and risks of interventions were considered when formulating the recommendations. There was an explicit link between the relevant recommendation and the supporting evidence; however, additional details such as the number of studies of each design were not provided. The guideline did not describe an external review process.19 The guideline authors state that the next review of the guideline is scheduled for 2022 but details on the procedure for updating the guideline were not provided.19 The recommendation regarding airway pressure release ventilation was specific and unambiguous. The recommendations were placed through the body of the guidelines and the key recommendations were not easily identifiable.19 Combining all the recommendations into a table or using bold text would have made them easier to identify. The guideline identified the funding source and included an explicit statement that the funder did not influence literature selection and evidence assessment.19 The conflicts of interest for the guideline development group were disclosed.
Appendix 4 presents the main study findings. There was some overlap in the primary studies that were included in the systematic reviews; therefore, to avoid duplication of results, outcome data from an individual primary study are only reported once.
Two systematic reviews15,16 and 1 RCT17 reported mixed evidence for the effect of airway pressure release ventilation on length of intensive care unit stay in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. In the systematic review by Sun et al. (2020)15 results from 2 of the included studies (1 RCT, 1 retrospective study) suggested there was no statistically significant difference in length of intensive care unit stay for airway pressure release ventilation versus other mechanical ventilation strategies (low tidal volume, synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation) and another included RCT found a statistically significant difference in favour of synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation. In the systematic review by Zhong et al. (2020)16 results from 1 included RCT suggested no statistically significant difference in length of intensive care unit stay between airway pressure release ventilation and low tidal volume ventilation; however, results from 2 other included RCTs suggested there was a statistically significant difference in favour of airway pressure release ventilation versus low tidal volume ventilation.
Evidence from the RCT by Ibarra-Estrada et al. (2022)17 suggested no statistically significant difference between airway pressure release ventilation and low tidal volume ventilation in length of intensive care unit stay in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and COVID-19.
Evidence from the RCT by Küçük et al. (2022)18 suggested there was a statistically significant difference in length of intensive care unit stay in favour of airway pressure release ventilation versus pressure-controlled synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation and pressure support in patients at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome.
Evidence from the relevant primary studies included in 3 systematic reviews14-16 and 1 RCT17 suggested there was no statistically significant difference in mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome treated with airway pressure release ventilation versus other mechanical ventilation strategies.
Evidence from the RCT by Küçük et al. (2022)18 suggested there was no statistically significant difference in 28-day mortality between patients at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome treated with airway pressure release ventilation versus pressure controlled synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation and pressure support.
Three systematic reviews14-16 reported mixed evidence for the effect of airway pressure release ventilation on oxygenation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Evidence from 3 RCTs included in the systematic reviews suggested there was no statistically significant difference in oxygenation for airway pressure release ventilation versus other mechanical ventilation strategies (synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation, low tidal volume ventilation) and evidence from 2 RCTs included in the systematic reviews suggested there was a statistically significant difference in favour of airway pressure release ventilation versus synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation.14,16
One systematic review16 and 1 RCT17 reported mixed evidence for the effect of airway pressure release ventilation on ventilator-free days in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Results from the systematic review by Zhong et al. (2020)16 suggested there was a statistically significant difference in ventilator-free days in favour of airway pressure release ventilation versus synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (2 RCTs) and pressure-control ventilation (1 RCT). Results from the systematic review suggested no statistically significant difference in ventilator-free days for airway pressure release ventilation versus volume control ventilation (1 RCT).16 Evidence from the Ibarra-Estrada et al. (2022)17 RCT suggested no statistically significant difference in ventilator-free days between airway pressure release ventilation and low tidal volume ventilation.
Evidence for the effect of airway pressure release ventilation on mean arterial pressure in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome from 2 systematic reviews14,16 was mixed. Evidence from the systematic review by Zhong et al. (2020)16 suggested that there was a statistically significant difference in the mean arterial pressure in favour of airway pressure release ventilation versus synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (2 RCTs). One RCT in the systematic review by the Chen et al. (2021)14 found no statistically significant difference in mean arterial pressure between airway pressure release ventilation and synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation and another RCT in the systematic review found a statistically significant difference in favour of airway pressure release ventilation versus synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation.
The systematic review by Sun et al. (2020)15 reported on days of mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome; however, it did not report the statistical significance of the results. In the systematic review the days of mechanical ventilation were numerically higher in the airway pressure release ventilation group in some of the identified studies (2 RCTs, 1 retrospective study), the same in both groups in 1 retrospective study and numerically higher in the control group in 1 RCT.15 In the RCT by Ibarra-Estrada (2022),17 there was no statistically significant difference in days of mechanical ventilation or extubation between airway pressure release ventilation versus low tidal volume ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and COVID-19.
In the RCT by Küçük et al. (2022)18 there was no statistically significant difference in incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, length of hospital stay, sedation requirement, vasopressor or inotrope requirement, or extubation between patients at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome treated with airway pressure release ventilation versus pressure controlled synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation and pressure support.
The systematic review by Sun et al. (2020)15 reported on tracheostomy; however, it did not report on the statistical significance of the results. The systematic review reported that the number of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome who received a tracheostomy was numerically higher in the control group versus the airway pressure release ventilation group (1 RCT, 1 retrospective study).15 In the RCT by Ibarra-Estrada (2022)17 there was no statistically significant difference in tracheostomy, barotrauma, or deep vein thrombosis between airway pressure release ventilation versus low tidal volume ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and COVID-19. Significantly more patients treated with airway pressure release ventilation experienced severe hypercapnia than those treated with low tidal volume ventilation in the RCT by Ibarra-Estrada (2022).17
In the RCT by Küçük et al. (2022),18 there was no statistically significant difference in tracheostomy between patients at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome treated with airway pressure release ventilation versus those treated with pressure controlled synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation and pressure support.
The German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine guideline gives a weak recommendation to consider using airway pressure release ventilation and biphasic positive airway pressure (i.e., pressure-controlled ventilation with the possibility of spontaneous breathing in the inspiratory and expiratory phases) in patients without severe acute respiratory distress syndrome.19 The recommendation is based on evidence from small randomized and observational studies that the guideline authors rated as low quality.19
Limited evidence was identified that evaluated airway pressure release ventilation in patients at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Only 1 RCT18 of patients at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome was identified and included in this report. The other included studies evaluated airway pressure release ventilation in patients who had been diagnosed with acute respiratory distress syndrome.14-17 Additionally, limited evidence regarding the safety of airway pressure release ventilation was identified.
Only 1 guideline was identified that included a recommendation on the use of airway pressure release ventilation in patients without severe acute respiratory syndrome. The was based on low quality evidence and was rated by the guideline authors as a weak recommendation.19
The included literature was of variable in methodological quality. Chen et al. (2021)14 assessed the included primary studies in their systematic review as being at unclear risk of bias. Zhong et al. (2020)16 rated all primary studies included in their systematic review as being at high risk of performance bias. The authors of the Sun et al. (2020)15 did not provide details on their quality assessment of the included primary studies. Due to the nature of the intervention, blinding of patients is not possible and therefore, studies are at risk of performance bias.
None of the relevant primary studies included in 2 of the systematic reviews14,15 or the 2 included RCTs17,18 were conducted in Canada. The countries where the included primary studies were conducted were not specified in the systematic review by Zhong et al. (2020).16 Additionally, the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine guideline19 is not specific to Canada. Therefore, it is unclear whether the results summarized in this report are generalizable to the Canadian context. Further, the RCT by Ibarra-Estrada et al. (2022)17 was conducted in the intensive care unit of a specialized COVID-19 centre and the results may not be generalizable to other settings.
This report comprised 3 systematic reviews,14-16 2 RCTs,17,18 and 1 evidence-based guideline.19
A range of mechanical ventilation strategies were used as comparators in the included systematic reviews14-16 and RCTs.17,18 Overall, the evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of airway pressure release ventilation versus other mechanical ventilation strategies was mixed. Results from the relevant primary studies included in the systematic reviews14-16 and RCTs17,18 suggested there was no significant difference in mortality between patients treated with airway pressure release ventilation versus other mechanical ventilation strategies. Results from the included studies varied for several outcomes (length of intensive care unit stay, oxygenation, ventilator-free days, mean arterial pressure). For length of intensive care unit stay evidence from some studies suggested there was a statistically significant difference in favour airway pressure release ventilation versus other mechanical ventilation strategies, other studies suggested there was a statistically significant difference in favour of other mechanical ventilation strategies, and some studies found no statistically significant differences in these outcomes between groups.14-18 For the other outcomes (oxygenation, ventilator-free days, mean arterial pressure) evidence from some studies suggested there was a statistically significant difference in favour airway pressure release ventilation versus other mechanical ventilation strategies; whereas others found no statistically significant differences between groups.14-17 Results from 1 RCT suggested there was no statistically significant difference in incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome between patients treated with airway pressure release ventilation versus control (pressure controlled synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation and pressure support).18
Evidence from 2 RCTs suggested there was no significant difference in tracheostomy between airway pressure release ventilation versus control in patients with or at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome. In 1 RCT, significantly more patients treated with airway pressure release ventilation experienced severe hypercapnia than those treated with low tidal volume ventilation.17
The German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine guideline suggests considering the use of pressure-controlled ventilation with the possibility of spontaneous breathing in the inspiratory and expiratory phases (i.e., airway pressure release ventilation and biphasic positive airway pressure) in patients without severe acute respiratory distress syndrome.19
A 2018 CADTH report8 on this topic identified 5 primary clinical studies (2 RCTs, 1 retrospective cohort study, and 2 single-arm studies) that evaluated airway pressure release ventilation in patients with or at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Overall, the results of the included studies favoured airway pressure release ventilation, however, the studies had important limitations as outlined in the previous CADTH report.8 These included the lack of blinding in the RCTs, the single-arm design of 2 of the non-randomized studies, and the lack of formal statistical comparisons and lack of specification of what ventilation modes were used in the control group in the retrospective cohort study.8
Due to the heterogenous results as well as the range of different comparators used in the included studies, it is difficult to draw conclusions around the clinical effectiveness of airway pressure release ventilation for the treatment of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Additionally, limited evidence was identified that evaluated airway pressure release ventilation in patients at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome. One evidence-based guideline was identified that suggests considering the use of airway pressure release ventilation in patients without severe acute respiratory distress syndrome.19 Future high-quality studies that focus on the comparative efficacy and safety of airway pressure release ventilation versus specific alternative ventilation strategies would help stakeholders in decision-making around the use of this intervention.
randomized controlled trial
partial pressure of oxygen/ fraction of inspired oxygen
Selection of Included Studies.
Note that this appendix has not been copy-edited.
Characteristics of Included Systematic Reviews.
Characteristics of Included Randomized Controlled Trials.
Characteristics of Included Guideline.
Note that this appendix has not been copy-edited.
Strengths and Limitations of Systematic Reviews Using AMSTAR 210.
Strengths and Limitations of Randomized Controlled Trials Using the Downs and Black Checklist.
Strengths and Limitations of Guideline Using AGREE II.
Note that this appendix has not been copy-edited.
Summary of Findings by Outcome — Length of ICU Stay.
Summary of Findings by Outcome — Mortality.
Summary of Findings by Outcome — Oxygenation.
Summary of Findings by Outcome — Ventilator-Free Days.
Summary of Findings by Outcome — Mean Arterial Pressure.
Summary of Findings by Outcome — Additional Clinical Outcomes.
Summary of Findings by Outcome — Additional Safety Outcomes.
Summary of Recommendations in Included Guideline.
Note that this appendix has not been copy-edited.
Overlap in Relevant Primary Studies Between Included Systematic Reviews.
Disclaimer: The information in this document is intended to help Canadian health care decision-makers, health care professionals, health systems leaders, and policy-makers make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. While patients and others may access this document, the document is made available for informational purposes only and no representations or warranties are made with respect to its fitness for any particular purpose. The information in this document should not be used as a substitute for professional medical advice or as a substitute for the application of clinical judgment in respect of the care of a particular patient or other professional judgment in any decision-making process. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) does not endorse any information, drugs, therapies, treatments, products, processes, or services.
While care has been taken to ensure that the information prepared by CADTH in this document is accurate, complete, and up to date as at the applicable date the material was first published by CADTH, CADTH does not make any guarantees to that effect. CADTH does not guarantee and is not responsible for the quality, currency, propriety, accuracy, or reasonableness of any statements, information, or conclusions contained in any third-party materials used in preparing this document. The views and opinions of third parties published in this document do not necessarily state or reflect those of CADTH.
CADTH is not responsible for any errors, omissions, injury, loss, or damage arising from or relating to the use (or misuse) of any information, statements, or conclusions contained in or implied by the contents of this document or any of the source materials.
This document may contain links to third-party websites. CADTH does not have control over the content of such sites. Use of third-party sites is governed by the third-party website owners’ own terms and conditions set out for such sites. CADTH does not make any guarantee with respect to any information contained on such third-party sites and CADTH is not responsible for any injury, loss, or damage suffered as a result of using such third-party sites. CADTH has no responsibility for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by third-party sites.
Subject to the aforementioned limitations, the views expressed herein are those of CADTH and do not necessarily represent the views of Canada’s federal, provincial, or territorial governments or any third-party supplier of information.
This document is prepared and intended for use in the context of the Canadian health care system. The use of this document outside of Canada is done so at the user’s own risk.
This disclaimer and any questions or matters of any nature arising from or relating to the content or use (or misuse) of this document will be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the laws of Canada applicable therein, and all proceedings shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Province of Ontario, Canada.
The copyright and other intellectual property rights in this document are owned by CADTH and its licensors. These rights are protected by the Canadian Copyright Act and other national and international laws and agreements. Users are permitted to make copies of this document for non-commercial purposes only, provided it is not modified when reproduced and appropriate credit is given to CADTH and its licensors.
About CADTH: CADTH is an independent, not-for-profit organization responsible for providing Canada’s health care decision-makers with objective evidence to help make informed decisions about the optimal use of drugs, medical devices, diagnostics, and procedures in our health care system.
Funding: CADTH receives funding from Canada’s federal, provincial, and territorial governments, with the exception of Quebec.
Questions or requests for information about this report can be directed to Requests@CADTH.ca
Except where otherwise noted, this work is distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-ND), a copy of which is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...
