Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
Rigshospitalet - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Neuromuscular blocking agents in acute respiratory distress syndrome: updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

  1. Occurrence and timing of withdrawal of life-sustaining measures in traumatic brain injury patients: a CENTER-TBI study

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Treating critically ill anemic patients with erythropoietin: less is more

    Research output: Contribution to journalLetterResearchpeer-review

  3. Clinical validation of precision medicine protocols: the last mile is the longest

    Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialResearchpeer-review

  1. Low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia: the COVID STEROID randomised, placebo-controlled trial

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Use of crystalloids and colloids in Europe per year from 2010 to 2019: Protocol for an international descriptive study

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. COVID-19 versus influenza A/B supeRInfectionS in the IntenSive care unit (CRISIS): Protocol for a Danish nationwide cohort study

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. Ischaemic vascular disease and long-term mortality in emergency abdominal surgical patients: A population-based cohort study

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  • GUIDE Group
View graph of relations

PURPOSE: Existing clinical practice guidelines support the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); however, a recent large randomized clinical trial (RCT) has questioned this practice. Therefore, we updated a previous systematic review to determine the efficacy and safety of NMBAs in ARDS.

METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE (October 2012 to July 2019), the Cochrane (Central) database, and clinical trial registries ( ClinicalTrials.gov , ISRCTN Register, and WHO ICTRP) for RCTs comparing the effects of NMBA as a continuous infusion versus placebo or no NMBA infusion (but allowing intermittent NMBA boluses) on patient-important outcomes for adults with ARDS. Two independent reviewers assessed the methodologic quality of the primary studies and abstracted data.

RESULTS: Seven RCTs, including four new RCTs, met eligibility criteria for this review. These trials enrolled 1598 patients with moderate to severe ARDS at centers in the USA, France, and China. All trials assessed short-term continuous infusions of cisatracurium or vecuronium. The pooled estimate for mortality outcomes showed significant statistical heterogeneity, which was only explained by a subgroup analysis by depth of sedation in the control arm. A continuous NMBA infusion did not improve mortality when compared to a light sedation strategy with no NMBA infusion (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% CI 0.86-1.15; moderate certainty; P = 0.93). On the other hand, continuous NMBA infusion reduced mortality when compared to deep sedation with as needed NMBA boluses (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.57-0.89; low certainty; P = 0.003). Continuous NMBA infusion reduced the rate of barotrauma (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.35-0.85, moderate certainty; P = 0.008) across eligible trials, but the effect on ventilator-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU-acquired weakness was uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistency in study methods and findings precluded the pooling of all trials for mortality. In a pre-planned sensitivity analysis, the impact of NMBA infusion on mortality depends on the strategy used in the control arm, showing reduced mortality when compared to deep sedation, but no effect on mortality when compared to lighter sedation. In both situations, a continuous NMBA infusion may reduce the risk of barotrauma, but the effects on other patient-important outcomes remain unclear. Future research, including an individual patient data meta-analysis, could help clarify some of the observed findings in this updated systematic review.

Original languageEnglish
JournalIntensive Care Medicine
Volume8
Issue number1
Pages (from-to)61
ISSN2197-425X
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 23 Oct 2020

ID: 61903184