Evidence Hub

Barotrauma: The statistical fallacy. A non-conventional scoping review with Bayesian meta-analysis

Aurio Fajardo-Campoverd, Valentina Vargas, Patrick Sepúlveda-Barisich, Alberto Medina, Adrian Gallardo, Víctor Pérez-Cateriano, Mauricio Parada-Gereda, Romina Lijerón-León

Journal of Mechanical Ventilation, 2024

4,298 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Background

Mechanical ventilator-associated damage has a high relevance in the clinical outcomes of critically ill patients. Barotrauma is a colloquial premise that has not been questioned, while other concepts such as mechanotransduction based on time-dependent viscoelastic models derived from materials engineering and physics appear as a more solid and clinically plausible postulate. This scoping review aims to provide a hypothesis that correlates lung injury associated with mechanical ventilation with dynamic ventilatory variables and inherent energy transfer.

Methods

Systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis PubMed database was searched from inception to November 20, 2024, for studies providing ventilatory parameters collected from ICU admission. The quality of the studies was independently assessed using the RoB2 Cochrane tool.

Results

A total of 7 studies were included for a total of 4298 patients. Of the total sample, 6.6% exhibited pneumothorax, with a mean peak inspiratory pressure of 35.1 cmH2O and 26.2 cmH2O plateau pressure. There was no correlation with any ventilatory mode, while mechanical power presented a poor negative correlation with barotrauma. The variables that presented the highest correlation with barotrauma were respiratory rate, driving pressure and elastic static power.

Conclusions

Available data show that, dynamic variables such as respiratory rate, in combination with static variables such as driving pressure, could comprehensively explain the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 4,298 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free