Multivariate Meta-Analysis of the Mortality Effect of Prone Positioning in the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Prone position for acute respiratory distress syndrome and the hazards of meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Researchers have tried unsuccessfully for many years using randomized controlled trials to show the efficacy of prone ventilation in treating ARDS. These failed attempts were of use in designing the successful PROSEVA trial, published in 2013. However, the evidence provided by meta-analyses in support of prone ventilation for ARDS was too low to be conclusive. The present study shows that meta-analysis is indeed not the best approach for the assessment of evidence as to the efficacy of prone ventilation.

METHODS

We performed a cumulative meta-analysis to prove that only the PROSEVA trial, due to its strong protective effect, has substantially impacted on the outcome. We also replicated nine published meta-analyses including the PROSEVA trial. We performed leave-one-out analyses, removing one trial at a time from each meta-analysis, measuring p values for effect size, and also the Cochran's Q test for heterogeneity assessment. We represented these analyses in a scatter plot to identify outlier studies influencing heterogeneity or overall effect size. We used interaction tests to formally identify and evaluate differences with the PROSEVA trial.

RESULTS

The positive effect of the PROSEVA trial accounted for most of the heterogeneity and for the reduction of overall effect size in the meta-analyses. The interaction tests we conducted on the nine meta-analyses formally confirmed the difference in the effectiveness of prone ventilation between the PROSEVA trial the other studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical lack of homogeneity between the PROSEVA trial design and the other studies should have discouraged the use of meta-analysis. Statistical considerations support this hypothesis, suggesting that the PROSEVA trial is an independent source of evidence.

Guideline on positioning and early mobilisation in the critically ill by an expert panel

A scientific panel was created consisting of 23 interdisciplinary and interprofessional experts in intensive care medicine, physiotherapy, nursing care, surgery, rehabilitative medicine, and pneumology delegated from scientific societies together with a patient representative and a delegate from the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies who advised methodological implementation. The guideline was created according to the German Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF), based on The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. The topics of (early) mobilisation, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, assist devices for mobilisation, and positioning, including prone positioning, were identified as areas to be addressed and assigned to specialist expert groups, taking conflicts of interest into account. The panel formulated PICO questions (addressing the population, intervention, comparison or control group as well as the resulting outcomes), conducted a systematic literature review with abstract screening and full-text analysis and created summary tables. This was followed by grading the evidence according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence and a risk of bias assessment. The recommendations were finalized according to GRADE and voted using an online Delphi process followed by a final hybrid consensus conference. The German long version of the guideline was approved by the professional associations. For this English version an update of the systematic review was conducted until April 2024 and recommendation adapted based on new evidence in systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. In total, 46 recommendations were developed and research gaps addressed.

Problematic meta-analyses: Bayesian and frequentist perspectives on combining randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies

PURPOSE

In the literature, the propriety of the meta-analytic treatment-effect produced by combining randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non-randomized studies (NRS) is questioned, given the inherent confounding in NRS that may bias the meta-analysis. The current study compared an implicitly principled pooled Bayesian meta-analytic treatment-effect with that of frequentist pooling of RCT and NRS to determine how well each approach handled the NRS bias.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Binary outcome Critical-Care meta-analyses, reflecting the importance of such outcomes in Critical-Care practice, combining RCT and NRS were identified electronically. Bayesian pooled treatment-effect and 95% credible-intervals (BCrI), posterior model probabilities indicating model plausibility and Bayes-factors (BF) were estimated using an informative heavy-tailed heterogeneity prior (half-Cauchy). Preference for pooling of RCT and NRS was indicated for Bayes-factors > 3 or < 0.333 for the converse. All pooled frequentist treatment-effects and 95% confidence intervals (FCI) were re-estimated using the popular DerSimonian-Laird (DSL) random effects model.

RESULTS

Fifty meta-analyses were identified (2009-2021), reporting pooled estimates in 44; 29 were pharmaceutical-therapeutic and 21 were non-pharmaceutical therapeutic. Re-computed pooled DSL FCI excluded the null (OR or RR = 1) in 86% (43/50). In 18 meta-analyses there was an agreement between FCI and BCrI in excluding the null. In 23 meta-analyses where FCI excluded the null, BCrI embraced the null. BF supported a pooled model in 27 meta-analyses and separate models in 4. The highest density of the posterior model probabilities for 0.333 < Bayes factor < 1 was 0.8.

CONCLUSIONS

In the current meta-analytic cohort, an integrated and multifaceted Bayesian approach gave support to including NRS in a pooled-estimate model. Conversely, caution should attend the reporting of naïve frequentist pooled, RCT and NRS, meta-analytic treatment effects.

Adjunctive Therapies in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Despite significant advances in understanding acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), mortality rates remain high. The appropriate use of adjunctive therapies can improve outcomes, particularly for patients with moderate to severe hypoxia. In this review, the authors discuss the evidence basis behind prone positioning, recruitment maneuvers, neuromuscular blocking agents, corticosteroids, pulmonary vasodilators, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and considerations for their use in individual patients and specific clinical scenarios. Because the heterogeneity of ARDS poses challenges in finding universally effective treatments, an individualized approach and continued research efforts are crucial for optimizing the utilization of adjunctive therapies and improving patient outcomes.

An appraisal of the methodology and quality of evidence of systematic reviews on the efficacy of prone positional ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: an umbrella review

The objective of the study was to evaluate all available systematic reviews on the use of prone positional ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). An umbrella review on the efficacy of prone positional ventilation in adult patients ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome was conducted. We performed a systematic search in the database of Medline (Pubmed), Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Epistemonikos. The ROBIS tools and GRADE methodology were used to assess the risk of bias and certainty of evidence. We estimated the necessary number of patients to be treated to have benefit. For the synthesis of the result, we selected the review with the lowest risk of bias. Sixteen systematic reviews including 64 randomized clinical trials and evaluating the effect of prone positional ventilation, with or without other ventilation strategies were included. Aoyama 2019 observed prone positioning, without complementary ventilation strategies, leading to a reduction in the 28-day mortality only when compared to high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.39-0.95) and lung-protective ventilation in the supine position (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.48-0.98), with an ARR of 9.32% and 14.94%, an NNTB of 5.89 and 8.04, and a low and moderate certainty of evidence, respectively. Most reviews had severe methodological flaws that led to results with very low certainty of evidence. The review with the lowest risk of bias presented results in favor of prone positional ventilation compared with high-frequency oscillatory ventilation and lung-protective ventilation. There is a need to update the available reviews to obtain more accurate results.

Endothelialitis, Microischemia, and Intussusceptive Angiogenesis in COVID-19

COVID-19 has been associated with a range of illness severity-from minimal symptoms to life-threatening multisystem organ failure. The severe forms of COVID-19 appear to be associated with an angiocentric or vascular phase of the disease. In studying autopsy patients succumbing to COVID-19, we found alveolar capillary microthrombi were 9 times more common in COVID-19 than in comparable patients with influenza. Corrosion casting of the COVID-19 microcirculation has revealed microvascular distortion, enhanced bronchial circulation, and striking increases in intussusceptive angiogenesis. In patients with severe COVID-19, endothelial cells commonly demonstrate significant ultrastructural injury. High-resolution imaging suggests that microcirculation perturbations are linked to ischemic changes in microanatomic compartments of the lung (secondary lobules). NanoString profiling of these regions has confirmed a transcriptional signature compatible with microischemia. We conclude that irreversible tissue ischemia provides an explanation for the cystic and fibrotic changes associated with long-haul COVID-19 symptoms.

Multivariate meta-analysis of critical care meta-analyses: a meta-epidemiological study

Background

Meta-analyses typically consider multiple outcomes and report univariate effect sizes considered as independent. Multivariate meta-analysis (MVMA) incorporates outcome correlation and synthesises direct evidence and related outcome estimates within a single analysis. In a series of meta-analyses from the critically ill literature, the current study contrasts multiple univariate effect estimates and their precision with those derived from MVMA.

Methods

A previous meta-epidemiological study was used to identify meta-analyses with either one or two secondary outcomes providing sufficient detail to structure bivariate or tri-variate MVMA, with mortality as primary outcome. Analysis was performed using a random effects model for both odds ratio (OR) and risk ratio (RR); borrowing of strength (BoS) between multivariate outcome estimates was reported. Estimate comparisons, β coefficients, standard errors (SE) and confidence interval (CI) width, univariate versus multivariate, were performed using Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).

Results

In bivariate meta-analyses, for OR (n = 49) and RR (n = 48), there was substantial concordance (≥ 0.69) between estimates; but this was less so for tri-variate meta-analyses for both OR (n = 25; ≥ 0.38) and RR (≥ -0.10; n = 22). A variable change in the multivariate precision of primary mortality outcome estimates compared with univariate was present for both bivariate and tri-variate meta-analyses and for metrics. For second outcomes, precision tended to decrease and CI width increase for bivariate meta-analyses, but was variable in the tri-variate. For third outcomes, precision increased and CI width decreased. In bivariate meta-analyses, OR coefficient significance reversal, univariate versus MVMA, occurred once for mortality and 6 cases for second outcomes. RR coefficient significance reversal occurred in 4 cases; 2 were discordant with OR. For tri-variate OR meta-analyses reversal of coefficient estimate significance occurred in two cases for mortality, nine cases for second and 7 cases for third outcomes. In RR meta-analyses significance reversals occurred for mortality in 2 cases, 6 cases for second and 3 cases for third; there were 7 discordances with OR. BoS was greater in trivariate MVMAs compared with bivariate and for OR versus RR.

Conclusions

MVMA would appear to be the preferred solution to multiple univariate analyses; parameter significance changes may occur. Analytic metric appears to be a determinant.