Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Higher vs Lower Oxygenation Strategies in Acutely Ill Adults: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{48f2ee1407194b4eaf29fe86b2205e57,
title = "Higher vs Lower Oxygenation Strategies in Acutely Ill Adults: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Liberal oxygen supplementation is often used in acute illness but has, in some studies, been associated with harm.RESEARCH QUESTION: The goal of this study was to assess the benefits and harms of higher vs lower oxygenation strategies in acutely ill adults.STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) of randomized clinical trials. A clear differentiation (separation) was made between a higher (liberal) oxygenation and a lower (conservative) oxygenation strategy and their effects on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, quality of life, lung injury, sepsis, and cardiovascular events at time points closest to 90 days in acutely ill adults.RESULTS: The study included 50 randomized clinical trials of 21,014 participants; 36 trials with a total of 20,166 participants contributed data to the analyses. Meta-analysis and TSAs showed no difference between higher and lower oxygenation strategies in trials at overall low risk of bias except for blinding: mortality relative risk (RR), 0.98 (95{\%} CI, 0.89-1.09; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.86-1.12; low certainty evidence); serious adverse events RR, 0.99 (95{\%} CI, 0.89-1.12; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.83-1.19; low certainty evidence). The corresponding summary estimates including trials with overall low and high risk of bias showed similar results. No difference was found between higher and lower oxygenation strategies in meta-analyses and TSAs regarding quality of life, lung injury, sepsis, and cardiovascular events (very low certainty evidence).INTERPRETATION: No evidence was found of beneficial or harmful effects of higher vs lower oxygenation strategies in acutely ill adults (low to very low certainty evidence).CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO; No.: CRD42017058011; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.",
author = "Marija Barbateskovic and Schj{\o}rring, {Olav L} and Krauss, {Sara Russo} and Meyhoff, {Christian S} and Jakobsen, {Janus J} and Rasmussen, {Bodil S} and Anders Perner and J{\o}rn Wetterslev",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} 2020 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.",
year = "2021",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.chest.2020.07.015",
language = "English",
volume = "159",
pages = "154--173",
journal = "Chest",
issn = "0012-3692",
publisher = "American College of Chest Physicians",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Higher vs Lower Oxygenation Strategies in Acutely Ill Adults

T2 - A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

AU - Barbateskovic, Marija

AU - Schjørring, Olav L

AU - Krauss, Sara Russo

AU - Meyhoff, Christian S

AU - Jakobsen, Janus J

AU - Rasmussen, Bodil S

AU - Perner, Anders

AU - Wetterslev, Jørn

N1 - Copyright © 2020 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2021/1

Y1 - 2021/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Liberal oxygen supplementation is often used in acute illness but has, in some studies, been associated with harm.RESEARCH QUESTION: The goal of this study was to assess the benefits and harms of higher vs lower oxygenation strategies in acutely ill adults.STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) of randomized clinical trials. A clear differentiation (separation) was made between a higher (liberal) oxygenation and a lower (conservative) oxygenation strategy and their effects on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, quality of life, lung injury, sepsis, and cardiovascular events at time points closest to 90 days in acutely ill adults.RESULTS: The study included 50 randomized clinical trials of 21,014 participants; 36 trials with a total of 20,166 participants contributed data to the analyses. Meta-analysis and TSAs showed no difference between higher and lower oxygenation strategies in trials at overall low risk of bias except for blinding: mortality relative risk (RR), 0.98 (95% CI, 0.89-1.09; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.86-1.12; low certainty evidence); serious adverse events RR, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.89-1.12; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.83-1.19; low certainty evidence). The corresponding summary estimates including trials with overall low and high risk of bias showed similar results. No difference was found between higher and lower oxygenation strategies in meta-analyses and TSAs regarding quality of life, lung injury, sepsis, and cardiovascular events (very low certainty evidence).INTERPRETATION: No evidence was found of beneficial or harmful effects of higher vs lower oxygenation strategies in acutely ill adults (low to very low certainty evidence).CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO; No.: CRD42017058011; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

AB - BACKGROUND: Liberal oxygen supplementation is often used in acute illness but has, in some studies, been associated with harm.RESEARCH QUESTION: The goal of this study was to assess the benefits and harms of higher vs lower oxygenation strategies in acutely ill adults.STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) of randomized clinical trials. A clear differentiation (separation) was made between a higher (liberal) oxygenation and a lower (conservative) oxygenation strategy and their effects on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, quality of life, lung injury, sepsis, and cardiovascular events at time points closest to 90 days in acutely ill adults.RESULTS: The study included 50 randomized clinical trials of 21,014 participants; 36 trials with a total of 20,166 participants contributed data to the analyses. Meta-analysis and TSAs showed no difference between higher and lower oxygenation strategies in trials at overall low risk of bias except for blinding: mortality relative risk (RR), 0.98 (95% CI, 0.89-1.09; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.86-1.12; low certainty evidence); serious adverse events RR, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.89-1.12; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.83-1.19; low certainty evidence). The corresponding summary estimates including trials with overall low and high risk of bias showed similar results. No difference was found between higher and lower oxygenation strategies in meta-analyses and TSAs regarding quality of life, lung injury, sepsis, and cardiovascular events (very low certainty evidence).INTERPRETATION: No evidence was found of beneficial or harmful effects of higher vs lower oxygenation strategies in acutely ill adults (low to very low certainty evidence).CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO; No.: CRD42017058011; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

U2 - 10.1016/j.chest.2020.07.015

DO - 10.1016/j.chest.2020.07.015

M3 - Journal article

VL - 159

SP - 154

EP - 173

JO - Chest

JF - Chest

SN - 0012-3692

IS - 1

ER -

ID: 60579081