TY - JOUR
T1 - The predictive value of airway occlusion pressure at 100 msec (P0.1) on successful weaning from mechanical ventilation
T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Sato, Ryota
AU - Hasegawa, Daisuke
AU - Hamahata, Natsumi T.
AU - Narala, Swetha
AU - Nishida, Kazuki
AU - Takahashi, Kunihiko
AU - Sempokuya, Tomoki
AU - Daoud, Ehab G.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2021/6
Y1 - 2021/6
N2 - Purpose: The predictive value of airway occlusion pressure at 100 milliseconds (P0.1) on weaning outcome has been controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to investigate the predictive value of P0.1 on successful weaning from mechanical ventilation. Materials and methods: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE, and two authors independently screened articles. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and the summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve were estimated. Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was calculated using meta-regression analysis. Results: We included 12 prospective observational studies (n = 1089 patients). Analyses of sROC curves showed the area under the curve of 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77 to 0.84) for P0.1. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 86% (95% CI, 72 to 94%) and 58% (95% CI, 37% to 76%) with substantial heterogeneity respectively. DOR was 20.09 (p = 0.019, 95%CI: 1.63–247.15). After filling the missing data using the trim-and-fill method to adjust publication bias, DOR was 36.23 (p = 0.002, 95%CI: 3.56–372.41). Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that P0.1 is a useful tool to predict successful weaning. To determine clinical utility, a large prospective study investigating the sensitivity and specificity of P0.1 on weaning outcomes from mechanical ventilation is warranted.
AB - Purpose: The predictive value of airway occlusion pressure at 100 milliseconds (P0.1) on weaning outcome has been controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to investigate the predictive value of P0.1 on successful weaning from mechanical ventilation. Materials and methods: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE, and two authors independently screened articles. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and the summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve were estimated. Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was calculated using meta-regression analysis. Results: We included 12 prospective observational studies (n = 1089 patients). Analyses of sROC curves showed the area under the curve of 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77 to 0.84) for P0.1. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 86% (95% CI, 72 to 94%) and 58% (95% CI, 37% to 76%) with substantial heterogeneity respectively. DOR was 20.09 (p = 0.019, 95%CI: 1.63–247.15). After filling the missing data using the trim-and-fill method to adjust publication bias, DOR was 36.23 (p = 0.002, 95%CI: 3.56–372.41). Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that P0.1 is a useful tool to predict successful weaning. To determine clinical utility, a large prospective study investigating the sensitivity and specificity of P0.1 on weaning outcomes from mechanical ventilation is warranted.
KW - Airway occlusion pressure
KW - Mechanical ventilation
KW - P 0.1
KW - Weaning
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85092012337&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.09.030
DO - 10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.09.030
M3 - Article
C2 - 33012587
AN - SCOPUS:85092012337
SN - 0883-9441
VL - 63
SP - 124
EP - 132
JO - Journal of Critical Care
JF - Journal of Critical Care
ER -