Article Text

Original research
Early neuromuscular blocking agents for adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression
  1. Shuai Shao,
  2. Hanyujie Kang,
  3. Zhaohui Tong
  1. Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
  1. Correspondence to Dr Zhaohui Tong; tongzhaohuicy{at}sina.com

Abstract

Objective To determine whether neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) can decrease the mortality of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and improve their clinical outcomes.

Design Systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression.

Data sources PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov.

Methods Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the treatment effect of NMBAs with that of placebo (or traditional treatment) in patients with ARDS were carefully selected. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were 21–28 days mortality, NMBA-related complications (barotrauma, pneumothorax and intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired muscle weakness), days free of ventilation and days not in the ICU by day 28, Medical Research Council score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score and arterial oxygen tension (PaO2)/fractional inspired oxygen (FiO2) (at 48 hours and 72 hours). Random-effects meta-regression was used to explore models involving potential moderators. Trial sequential analysis was performed to estimate the cumulative effect on mortality across RCTs.

Results NMBAs were not associated with reduced 90-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.85; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.09; p=0.20). However, they decreased the 21–28 days mortality (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96; p=0.02) and the rates of pneumothorax (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.77; p=0.003) and barotrauma (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.86; p=0.008). In addition, NMBAs increased PaO2/FiO2 at 48 hours (mean difference (MD) 18.91; 95% CI 4.29 to 33.53; p=0.01) and 72 hours (MD 12.27; 95% CI 4.65 to 19.89; p=0.002). Meta-regression revealed an association between sample size (p=0.042) and short-term mortality. Publication year (p=0.050), sedation strategy (p=0.047) and sample size (p=0.046) were independently associated with PaO2/FiO2 at 48 hours.

Conclusions In summary, the results suggested that use of NMBAs might reduce 21–28 days mortality, NMBA-related complications and oxygenation. However, NMBAs did not reduce the 90-day mortality of patients with ARDS, which contradicts a previous meta-analysis.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42019139440.

  • adult intensive & critical care
  • respiratory medicine (see thoracic medicine)
  • intensive & critical care
  • thoracic medicine
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Supplementary materials

Footnotes

  • Contributors SS and ZT developed the initial idea of this study. SS and HK conducted a comprehensive search of five databases. SS and HK took responsibility for selecting the study and extracting data. All authors have made their contributions to research design, interpretation of results and ideas for writing articles. SS synthesised and analysed the data and drafted the article. ZT and HK carefully examined this manuscript and all of the authors agreed with the ideas presented in the article.

  • Funding This work was supported by the funds of National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 81870004) and Beijing Municipal Bureau of Health (CN) (grant numbers 2016-1-1061).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement Data are available on reasonable request. The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ClinicalTrial.gov.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.