Search

BACKGROUND: This Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes-guided systematic review assesses continuous lateral rotation therapy versus conventional position changes in mechanically ventilated critically ill adults, evaluating mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS as primary outcomes and respiratory function, mechanical ventilation duration, pulmonary complications, and adverse events as secondary outcomes. METHODS: This systematic review follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022384258). Searches spanned databases MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Cochrane, CINAHL, and Web of Science, without language or publication year restrictions. Inclusion criteria involved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials, comparing continuous lateral rotation therapy (intervention) with conventional position changes (control). Risk of bias and quality of evidence for RCTs were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tools. For the quasi-randomized trials, the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies-of Interventions tool was used. RESULTS: In 18 studies with 1,466 participants (intervention, n = 700, 47.7%; control, n = 766, 52.2%), continuous lateral rotation therapy was predominantly used for prophylactic purposes, with protocols varying from 10-24 h/d. Meta-analysis (16 RCTs) favored continuous lateral rotation therapy for reduced mechanical ventilation duration (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.17 [CI -0.29 to -0.04] d, P = .008) and lower nosocomial pneumonia incidence (odds ratio 0.39 [CI 0.29-0.52], P < .001). Continuous lateral rotation therapy showed no significant impact on mortality (odds ratio 1.04 [CI 0.80-1.34], P = .77), ICU LOS (SMD -0.11 [CI -0.25 to 0.02] d, P = .11), hospital LOS (SMD -0.10 [CI -0.31 to 0.11] d, P = .33), and incidence of pressure ulcers (odds ratio 0.73 [CI 0.34-1.60], P = .44). CONCLUSIONS: Continuous lateral rotation therapy showed no significant difference in primary outcomes (mortality, ICU and hospital LOS) but revealed significant differences in secondary outcomes (consistently reduced nosocomial pneumonia, with a minor effect on mechanical ventilation duration), supported by moderate certainty. Very low certainty for other outcomes highlights the need for current studies in diverse clinical settings and protocols to assess continuous lateral rotation therapy effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Id on Line. Revista de Psicologia is the property of Id on Line Revista Multidisciplinar e de Psicologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Respiratory muscle strength in patients with an artificial airway is commonly assessed as the maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) and is measured using analogue or digital manometers. Recently, new electronic loading devices have been proposed to measure respiratory muscle strength. This study evaluates the agreement between the MIPs measured by a digital manometer and those according to an electronic loading device in patients being weaned from mechanical ventilation. Methods: In this prospective study, the standard MIP was obtained using a protocol adapted from Marini, in which repetitive inspiratory efforts were performed against an occluded airway with a one-way valve and were recorded with a digital manometer for 40 seconds (MIPDM). The MIP measured using the electronic loading device (MIPELD) was obtained from repetitively tapered flow resistive inspirations sustained for at least 2 seconds during a 40-second test. The agreement between the results was verified by a Bland-Altman analysis. Results: A total of 39 subjects (17 men, 55.4±17.7 years) was enrolled. Although a strong correlation between MIPDM and MIPELD (R=0.73, P<0.001) was observed, the Bland-Altman analysis showed a high bias of -47.4 (standard deviation, 22.3 cm H2O; 95% confidence interval, -54.7 to -40.2 cm H2O). Conclusions: The protocol of repetitively tapering flow resistive inspirations to measure the MIP with the electronic loading device is not in agreement with the standard protocol using one-way valve inspiratory occlusion when applied in poorly cooperative patients being weaned from mechanical ventilation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]