Back to Search Start Over

Ventilation Techniques and Risk for Transmission of Coronavirus Disease, Including COVID-19 : a Living Systematic Review of Multiple Streams of Evidence

Authors :
Anna Bak
Joel Schmidt
Rebecca Thomas
Tamara Lotfi
Paul Garner
Finn Schünemann
Layal Hneiny
Robby Nieuwlaat
Holger J. Schünemann
Anisa Hajizadeh
Andrea Darzi
Joanne Khabsa
Ariel Izcovich
Fatimah Chamseddine
Elie A. Akl
Jan Brozek
Nancy Santesso
Florian Stehling
Giovanna E. U. Muti-Schünemann
Wojciech Szczeklik
Ignacio Neumann
Rayane El-Khoury
Mark Loeb
Waleed Alhazzani
Ewa Borowiack
Derek K. Chu
Rosa Stalteri
Assem M. Khamis
Tejan Baldeh
Romina Brignardello-Petersen
Stephen Aston
Sally Yaacoub
Gian Paolo Morgano
Marge Reinap
Zahra Saad
Bram Rochwerg
Carlos A. Cuello-Garcia
Mats Junek
Eddy Fan
Dan Perri
Yuan Zhang
Antonio Bognanni
Imad Bou Akl
Karla Solo
Chen Chen
Guang Chen
Amena El-Harakeh
Hong Zhao
Thomas Piggott
Leila Harrison
Source :
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, Annals of Internal Medicine
Publication Year :
2020

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: 21 standard, World Health Organization-specific and COVID-19-specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: 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. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews). DATA SYNTHESIS: 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. LIMITATION: Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported. CONCLUSION: 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. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: World Health Organization. (PROSPERO: CRD42020178187).

Details

Language :
English
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, Annals of Internal Medicine
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....9ae77cabcd182e057bd5528b9aaa0ceb