for the main comparison.
| Partial liquid ventilation compared with conventional mechanical ventilation for acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome | ||||||
|
Patient or population: mechanically ventilated participants with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome Settings: Intensive care in Europe and North America Intervention: Partial liquid ventilation Comparison: Conventilation mechanical ventilation | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Risk ratio (95% CI) | No. of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Conventional mechanical ventilation | Partial liquid ventilation | |||||
| 28 d mortality | 1.8 per 1000 | 2.18 per 1000 | 1.21 (0.79 to 1.85) |
302 (2) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | |
| Number of days free of mechanical ventilation in a 28 d period | The number of days free of mechanical ventilation in the control groups during a 28 d period ranged from 3.7 to 22.3 d | The mean number of days free of mechanical ventilation in a 28 d period was 2.24 (4.71 to 0.23) d less in the PLV group than in the CMV group | 302 (2) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | ||
| Adverse events | ||||||
| Hypoxia | 2.4 per 1000 | 4.2 per 1000 | 1.77 (0.97 to 3.24) |
302 (2) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | |
| Pneumothorax | 1.0 per 1000 | 2.0 per 1000 | 2.06 (0.71 to 5.95) |
302 (2) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | |
| Hypotension | 2.2 per 1000 | 3.0 per 1000 | 1.38 (0.87 to 2.19) |
302 (2) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | |
| Bradycardia | 0.8 per 1000 | 2.0 per 1000 | 2.51 (1.31 to 4.81) |
302 (2) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | |
| Cardiac arrest | 0.5 per 1000 | 0.7 per 1000 | 1.31 (0.56 to 3.04) |
302 (2) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the mean control group risk across included studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1.The 'low' quality grade was assigned on the basis that only two studies were eligible for inclusion in this meta‐analysis, limiting the quantity of data available for analysis, and based on the fact that both studies excluded those with severe nonpulmonary organ dysfunction, limiting the generalizability of these results.