Impact of Conservative Versus Conventional Oxygenation on Outcomes of Patients in Intensive Care Units: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Conservative versus liberal oxygen therapy for intensive care unit patients: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear whether conservative oxygen therapy (COT) or liberal oxygen therapy (LOT) is more beneficial to the clinical outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) patients. We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of conservative versus liberal oxygen therapy for ICU patients.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, MedRxiv, and BioRxiv for reports on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of COT versus LOT on the clinical outcomes of ICU patients published in English before April 2024. The primary outcome was the mortality rate, secondary outcomes included ICU and hospital length of stay, days free from mechanical ventilation support (MVF), vasopressor-free time (VFT), and adverse events.

RESULTS

In all, 13 RCTs involving 10,632 patients were included in analyses. Meta-analysis showed COT did not reduce mortality at 30-day (risk ratio [RR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94 to 1.09, I2 = 42%, P = 0.78), 90-day (RR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.08, I2 = 9%, P = 0.69), or longest follow-up (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06, I2 = 22%, P = 0.95) compared to LOT in ICU patients. In subgroup analyses, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of the different ICU, baseline P/F, and actual PaO2. In addition, COT did not affect ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, or VFT, it only affected MVF days.

CONCLUSIONS

COT did not reduce all-cause mortality in ICU patients. Further RCTs are urgently needed to confirm the impact of COT strategy on specific populations.

Conservative versus conventional oxygen therapy in type I acute respiratory failure patients in respiratory intensive care unit, Zagazig University

The present study aimed to assess the effect of a conservative (permissive hypoxemia) versus conventional (normoxia) protocol for oxygen supplementation on the outcome of type I respiratory failure patients admitted to respiratory intensive care unit (ICU). This randomized controlled clinical trial was carried out at the Respiratory ICU, Chest Department of Zagazig University Hospital, for 18 months, starting in July 2018. On admission, 56 enrolled patients with acute respiratory failure were randomized in a 1:1 ratio into the conventional group [oxygen therapy was supplied to maintain oxygen saturation (SpO2) between 94% and 97%] and the conservative group (oxygen therapy was administered to maintain SpO2 values between 88% and 92%). Different outcomes were assessed, including ICU mortality, the need for mechanical ventilation (MV) (invasive or non-invasive), and ICU length of stay. In the current study, the partial pressure of oxygen was significantly higher among the conventional group at all times after the baseline reading, and bicarbonate was significantly higher among the conventional group at the first two readings. There was no significant difference in serum lactate level in follow-up readings. The mean duration of MV and ICU length of stay was 6.17±2.05 and 9.25±2.22 days in the conventional group versus 6.46±2.0 and 9.53±2.16 days in the conservative group, respectively, without significant differences between both groups. About 21.4% of conventional group patients died, while 35.7% of conservative group patients died without a significant difference between both groups. We concluded that conservative oxygen therapy may be applied safely to patients with type I acute respiratory failure.

Higher versus lower oxygenation strategies in the general intensive care unit population: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Oxygen therapy is vital in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but it is indistinct whether higher or lower oxygen targets are favorable. Our aim was to update the findings of randomized controlled trials (RTCs) comparing higher and lower oxygen strategies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched. RCTs comparing higher (liberal, hyperoxia) and lower (conservative, normoxia) oxygen in adult mechanically ventilated ICU patients were included. The main outcome was 90-day mortality; other outcomes include serious adverse events (SAE), support free days and length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed for 90-day mortality. A lower incidence was found for SAEs, favoring lower oxygenation (OR, 0.86; 95%CI, 0.77-0.96; I ² 13%). No differences were observed in either support free days at day 28 or ICU and hospital LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference was found for 90-day mortality, support free days and ICU and hospital LOS. However, a lower incidence of SAEs was found for lower oxygenation. These findings may have clinical implications for practice guidelines, yet it remains of paramount importance to continue conducting clinical trials, comparing groups with a clinically relevant contrast and focusing on the impact of important side effects.

German S3 Guideline: Oxygen Therapy in the Acute Care of Adult Patients

BACKGROUND

Oxygen (O2) is a drug with specific biochemical and physiological properties, a range of effective doses and may have side effects. In 2015, 14% of over 55,000 hospital patients in the UK were using oxygen. 42% of patients received this supplemental oxygen without a valid prescription. Health care professionals are frequently uncertain about the relevance of hypoxemia and have low awareness about the risks of hyperoxemia. Numerous randomized controlled trials about targets of oxygen therapy have been published in recent years. A national guideline is urgently needed.

METHODS

A national S3 guideline was developed and published within the Program for National Disease Management Guidelines (AWMF) with participation of 10 medical associations. A literature search was performed until February 1, 2021, to answer 10 key questions. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) System ("The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence") was used to classify types of studies in terms of validity. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used for assessing the quality of evidence and for grading guideline recommendation, and a formal consensus-building process was performed.

RESULTS

The guideline includes 34 evidence-based recommendations about indications, prescription, monitoring and discontinuation of oxygen therapy in acute care. The main indication for O2 therapy is hypoxemia. In acute care both hypoxemia and hyperoxemia should be avoided. Hyperoxemia also seems to be associated with increased mortality, especially in patients with hypercapnia. The guideline provides recommended target oxygen saturation for acute medicine without differentiating between diagnoses. Target ranges for oxygen saturation are based depending on ventilation status risk for hypercapnia. The guideline provides an overview of available oxygen delivery systems and includes recommendations for their selection based on patient safety and comfort.

CONCLUSION

This is the first national guideline on the use of oxygen in acute care. It addresses health care professionals using oxygen in acute out-of-hospital and in-hospital settings.

Conservative oxygen therapy for critically ill patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective

Conservative oxygen strategy is recommended in acute illness while its benefit in ICU patients remains controversial. Therefore, we sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine such oxygen strategies’ effect and safety in ICU patients.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database from inception to Feb 15, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a conservative oxygen strategy to a conventional strategy in critically ill patients were included. Results were expressed as mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary outcome was the longest follow-up mortality. Heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias were also investigated to test the robustness of the primary outcome.

Results

We included seven trials with a total of 5265 patients. In general, the conventional group had significantly higher SpO₂ or PaO₂ than that in the conservative group. No statistically significant differences were found in the longest follow-up mortality (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.97–1.10; I²=18%; P=0.34) between the two oxygen strategies when pooling studies enrolling subjects with various degrees of hypoxemia. Further sensitivity analysis showed that ICU patients with mild-to-moderate hypoxemia (PaO₂/FiO₂ >100 mmHg) had significantly lower mortality (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.05–1.46; I²=0%; P=0.01) when receiving conservative oxygen therapy. These findings were also confirmed in other study periods. Additional, secondary outcomes of the duration of mechanical ventilation, the length of stay in the ICU and hospital, change in sequential organ failure assessment score, and adverse events were comparable between the two strategies.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that conservative oxygen therapy strategy did not improve the prognosis of the overall ICU patients. The subgroup of ICU patients with mild to moderate hypoxemia might obtain prognosis benefit from such a strategy without affecting other critical clinical results.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40560-021-00563-7.