Automated versus non-automated weaning for reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation for critically ill adults and children: a cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroductionAutomated weaning systems may improve adaptation of mechanical support for a patient’s ventilatory needs and facilitate systematic and early recognition of their ability to breathe spontaneously and the potential for discontinuation of ventilation. Our objective was to compare mechanical ventilator weaning duration for critically ill adults and children when managed with automated systems versus non-automated strategies. Secondary objectives were to determine differences in duration of ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), mortality, and adverse events.MethodsElectronic databases were searched to 30 September 2013 without language restrictions. We also searched conference proceedings; trial registration websites; and article reference lists. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We combined data using random-effects modelling.ResultsWe identified 21 eligible trials totalling 1,676 participants. Pooled data from 16 trials indicated that automated systems reduced the geometric mean weaning duration by 30% (95% confidence interval (CI) 13% to 45%), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 87%, P <0.00001). Reduced weaning duration was found with mixed or medical ICU populations (42%, 95% CI 10% to 63%) and Smartcare/PS™ (28%, 95% CI 7% to 49%) but not with surgical populations or using other systems. Automated systems reduced ventilation duration with no heterogeneity (10%, 95% CI 3% to 16%) and ICU LOS (8%, 95% CI 0% to 15%). There was no strong evidence of effect on mortality, hospital LOS, reintubation, self-extubation and non-invasive ventilation following extubation. Automated systems reduced prolonged mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy. Overall quality of evidence was high.ConclusionsAutomated systems may reduce weaning and ventilation duration and ICU stay. Due to substantial trial heterogeneity an adequately powered, high quality, multi-centre randomized controlled trial is needed.

Accuracy of LightCycler SeptiFast for the detection and identification of pathogens in the blood of patients with suspected sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose: There is an urgent need to develop diagnostic tests to improve the detection of pathogens causing life-threatening infection (sepsis). SeptiFast is a CE-marked multi-pathogen real-time PCR system capable of detecting DNA sequences of bacteria and fungi present in blood samples within a few hours. We report here a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies of SeptiFast in the setting of suspected sepsis.

Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was developed to identify studies that compared SeptiFast with blood culture in suspected sepsis. Methodological quality was assessed using QUADAS. Heterogeneity of studies was investigated using a coupled forest plot of sensitivity and specificity and a scatter plot in receiver operator characteristic space. Bivariate model method was used to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity.

Results: From 41 phase III diagnostic accuracy studies, summary sensitivity and specificity for SeptiFast compared with blood culture were 0.68 (95 % CI 0.63–0.73) and 0.86 (95 % CI 0.84–0.89) respectively. Study quality was judged to be variable with important deficiencies overall in design and reporting that could impact on derived diagnostic accuracy metrics.

Conclusions: SeptiFast appears to have higher specificity than sensitivity, but deficiencies in study quality are likely to render this body of work unreliable. Based on the evidence presented here, it remains difficult to make firm recommendations about the likely clinical utility of SeptiFast in the setting of suspected sepsis.

A systematic review of midwife-led interventions to address post partum post-traumatic stress

Optical Coherence Tomography for the Monitoring of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Systematic Review

Topic

To compare the accuracy of optical coherence tomography (OCT) with alternative tests for monitoring neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) and detecting disease activity among eyes previously treated for this condition.

Traditionally, fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA) has been considered the reference standard to detect nAMD activity, but FFA is costly and invasive. Replacement of FFA by OCT can be justified if there is a substantial agreement between tests.

Systematic review and meta-analysis. The index test was OCT. The comparator tests were visual acuity, clinical evaluation (slit lamp), Amsler chart, color fundus photographs, infrared reflectance, red-free images and blue reflectance, fundus autofluorescence imaging, indocyanine green angiography (ICGA), preferential hyperacuity perimetry, and microperimetry. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Biosis, Science Citation Index, the Cochrane Library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, MEDION, and the Health Technology Assessment database. The last literature search was conducted in March 2013. We used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) to assess risk of bias.

We included 8 studies involving more than 400 participants. Seven reported the performance of OCT (3 time-domain [TD] OCT, 3 spectral-domain [SD] OCT, 1 both types) and 1 reported the performance of ICGA in the detection of nAMD activity. We did not find studies directly comparing tests in the same population. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of TD OCT and SD OCT for detecting active nAMD was 85% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72%–93%) and 48% (95% CI, 30%–67%), respectively. One study reported ICGA with sensitivity of 75.9% and specificity of 88.0% for the detection of active nAMD. Half of the studies were considered to have a high risk of bias.

There is substantial disagreement between OCT and FFA findings in detecting active disease in patients with nAMD who are being monitored. Both methods may be needed to monitor patients comprehensively with nAMD.

Optical coherence tomography for the diagnosis, monitoring and guiding of treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration:a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration is the most common cause of sight impairment in the UK. In neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), vision worsens rapidly (over weeks) due to abnormal blood vessels developing that leak fluid and blood at the macula.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the optimal role of optical coherence tomography (OCT) in diagnosing people newly presenting with suspected nAMD and monitoring those previously diagnosed with the disease.

DATA SOURCES: Databases searched: MEDLINE (1946 to March 2013), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (March 2013), EMBASE (1988 to March 2013), Biosciences Information Service (1995 to March 2013), Science Citation Index (1995 to March 2013), The Cochrane Library (Issue 2 2013), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (inception to March 2013), Medion (inception to March 2013), Health Technology Assessment database (inception to March 2013).

REVIEW METHODS: Types of studies: direct/indirect studies reporting diagnostic outcomes.

INDEX TEST: time domain optical coherence tomography (TD-OCT) or spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT).

COMPARATORS: clinical evaluation, visual acuity, Amsler grid, colour fundus photographs, infrared reflectance, red-free images/blue reflectance, fundus autofluorescence imaging, indocyanine green angiography, preferential hyperacuity perimetry, microperimetry. Reference standard: fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA). Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies, version 2. Meta-analysis models were fitted using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves. A Markov model was developed (65-year-old cohort, nAMD prevalence 70%), with nine strategies for diagnosis and/or monitoring, and cost-utility analysis conducted. NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was adopted. Costs (2011/12 prices) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted (3.5%). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS: In pooled estimates of diagnostic studies (all TD-OCT), sensitivity and specificity [95% confidence interval (CI)] was 88% (46% to 98%) and 78% (64% to 88%) respectively. For monitoring, the pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) was 85% (72% to 93%) and 48% (30% to 67%) respectively. The FFA for diagnosis and nurse-technician-led monitoring strategy had the lowest cost (£39,769; QALYs 10.473) and dominated all others except FFA for diagnosis and ophthalmologist-led monitoring (£44,649; QALYs 10.575; incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £47,768). The least costly strategy had a 46.4% probability of being cost-effective at £30,000 willingness-to-pay threshold.

LIMITATIONS: Very few studies provided sufficient information for inclusion in meta-analyses. Only a few studies reported other tests; for some tests no studies were identified. The modelling was hampered by a lack of data on the diagnostic accuracy of strategies involving several tests.

CONCLUSIONS: Based on a small body of evidence of variable quality, OCT had high sensitivity and moderate specificity for diagnosis, and relatively high sensitivity but low specificity for monitoring. Strategies involving OCT alone for diagnosis and/or monitoring were unlikely to be cost-effective. Further research is required on (i) the performance of SD-OCT compared with FFA, especially for monitoring but also for diagnosis; (ii) the performance of strategies involving combinations/sequences of tests, for diagnosis and monitoring; (iii) the likelihood of active and inactive nAMD becoming inactive or active respectively; and (iv) assessment of treatment-associated utility weights (e.g. decrements), through a preference-based study.

STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012001930.

FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.