TY - JOUR

T1 - Spontaneous versus controlled mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome – Protocol for a scoping review

AU - Aslam, Tayyba N.

AU - Klitgaard, Thomas L.

AU - Møller, Morten H.

AU - Perner, Anders

AU - Hofsø, Kristin

AU - Skrubbeltrang, Conni

AU - Flaatten, Hilde I.

AU - Rasmussen, Bodil S.

AU - Laake, Jon H.

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - Background: In caring for mechanically ventilated adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), clinicians are faced with an uncertain choice between controlled or spontaneous breathing modes. Observational data indicate considerable practice variation which may be driven by differences in sedation and mobilisation practices. The benefits and harms of either strategy are largely unknown. Methods: A scoping review will be prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews. We will review the clinical literature on controlled vs spontaneous breathing in mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS of any severity. Studies reporting on qualitative and/or quantitative data from any world region will be considered. For inclusion, studies must include data on mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS who are allowed spontaneous (triggered ventilation). Searches will be conducted in four electronic databases without any limitation on publication date and language. We will assess the quality of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, where appropriate. Conclusion: We will perform a scoping review of the clinical literature on controlled vs spontaneously breathing in mechanically ventilated patients who fulfil ARDS criteria (including acute lung injury). This is to elucidate if a pragmatic clinical trial comparing controlled and spontaneous mechanical ventilation is warranted and will allow us to formulate relevant research questions.

AB - Background: In caring for mechanically ventilated adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), clinicians are faced with an uncertain choice between controlled or spontaneous breathing modes. Observational data indicate considerable practice variation which may be driven by differences in sedation and mobilisation practices. The benefits and harms of either strategy are largely unknown. Methods: A scoping review will be prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews. We will review the clinical literature on controlled vs spontaneous breathing in mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS of any severity. Studies reporting on qualitative and/or quantitative data from any world region will be considered. For inclusion, studies must include data on mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS who are allowed spontaneous (triggered ventilation). Searches will be conducted in four electronic databases without any limitation on publication date and language. We will assess the quality of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, where appropriate. Conclusion: We will perform a scoping review of the clinical literature on controlled vs spontaneously breathing in mechanically ventilated patients who fulfil ARDS criteria (including acute lung injury). This is to elucidate if a pragmatic clinical trial comparing controlled and spontaneous mechanical ventilation is warranted and will allow us to formulate relevant research questions.

U2 - 10.1111/aas.13570

DO - 10.1111/aas.13570

M3 - Review

C2 - 32157683

AN - SCOPUS:85082025521

VL - 64

SP - 857

EP - 860

JO - Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica

JF - Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica

SN - 0001-5172

IS - 6

ER -