Skip to main content
. 2019 May 24;6(1):e000420. doi: 10.1136/bmjresp-2019-000420

Table 6.

iVasoD compared to placebo or usual care for ARDS

Patient or population: adults with ARDS
Settings: intensive care
Intervention: iNO for all studies
Comparison: placebo or usual care
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI) Relative effect (95% CI) No. of participants (studies) Quality of evidence (GRADE) Comments
Control risk Intervention risk
Placebo/Usual care iVasoD
Mortality (pooled) 315 per 1000 346 per 1000
(296 to 406)
RR 1.10
(0.94 to 1.29)
1142
(nine studies)
++--
LOW
Due to serious risk of bias and serious indirectness
Six out of nine studies compared iNO with usual care rather than placebo
Highly variable dose and duration of iNO and inclusion criteria
Adverse event: renal dysfunction 124 per 1000 191 per 1000
(142 to 258)
RR 1.55
(1.15 to 2.09)
919
(four studies)
++--
LOW
Due to serious risk of bias and serious indirectness
Highly variable dose and duration of iNO and inclusion criteria
Variable criteria used to define renal dysfunction

ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; iNO, iVasoD, inhaled nitric oxide; iVasoD, inhaled vasodilators.