Brazilian Journal of Respiratory, Cardiovascular and Critical Care Physiotherapy
https://bjr-assobrafir.org/article/doi/10.47066/2966-4837.e00592024en
Brazilian Journal of Respiratory, Cardiovascular and Critical Care Physiotherapy
Artigo de Revisão

Prophylactic noninvasive ventilation in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: protocol for an umbrella review

Ventilação não invasiva profilática em pacientes submetidos a cirurgia cardíaca: protocolo para uma revisão guarda-chuva

João Paulo Rodrigues Pacheco, Hiago Vinicius Costa Silva, Deziel de Oliveira Siqueira, Adriana Cláudia Lunardi, Elinaldo da Conceição dos Santos

Downloads: 0
Views: 24

Abstract

Background: Evidence on the effects of prophylactic non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in the postoperative period of cardiac surgery is still inconsistent, despite evidence derived from systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials. Aim: To synthesize the evidence produced by systematic reviews on the effects of prophylactic postoperative NIV in adults undergoing cardiac surgery, on outcomes pulmonary complications, reintubation, length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU), length of hospital stay, mortality, and oxygenation. Methods: Protocol for umbrella review that will include randomized trials, with patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Primary outcome: Pulmonary complication. Sources of information: various databases, in the International Prospective Register Of Systematic Reviews database, gray literature, and references and citations from the selected reviews. The search will be conducted by an independent author and two authors will select systematic reviews. The information extracted from the studies will be stored in a pre-structured database. The AMSTAR-2 tool will be used to assess the quality of the systematic reviews. The outcome measures will be presented in a descriptive format, with tables and meta-analyses. Results: This review will help to clarify which of these outcomes are consistent and inconsistent regarding the use of NIV in post-operative cardiac surgery and to investigate the possible causes of the outcome. Conclusion: By mapping the literature previously, we found at least four systematic reviews that can be analyzed and provide more consistent answers to these questions. In addition, future findings can support more accurate research, help in the formulation of policies and clinical practices.

Keywords

Respiratory Therapy; Thoracic Surgery; Review

Resumo

Introdução: as evidências sobre os efeitos da ventilação não invasiva (VNI) profilática no pós-operatório de cirurgia cardíaca ainda são inconsistentes, apesar das evidências de revisões sistemáticas com meta-análises de ensaios clínicos randomizados. Objetivo: sintetizar as evidências produzidas por revisões sistemáticas sobre os efeitos da VNI profilática no pós-operatório em adultos submetidos à cirurgia cardíaca, sobre os desfechos complicações pulmonares, reintubação, tempo de internação na unidade de terapia intensiva, tempo de internação hospitalar, mortalidade e oxigenação. Métodos: protocolo para revisão guarda-chuva que incluirão ensaios randomizados, com pacientes submetidos à cirurgia cardíaca. Desfecho primário: complicação pulmonar. Fontes de informação: diversas bases de dados, na base de dados International Prospective Register Of Systematic Reviews, literatura cinzenta, referências e citações das revisões selecionadas. A busca será conduzida por um autor independente e dois autores selecionarão as revisões sistemáticas. As informações extraídas dos estudos serão armazenadas em um banco de dados pré-estruturado. A ferramenta AMSTAR-2 será utilizada para avaliar a qualidade das revisões sistemáticas. As medidas de desfecho serão apresentadas em um formato descritivo, tabelas e meta-análises. Resultados: esta revisão ajudará a esclarecer quais desses resultados são consistentes e inconsistentes em relação ao uso de VNI em cirurgia cardíaca pós-operatória e a investigar as possíveis causas do resultado. Conclusão: ao mapear a literatura previamente, encontramos pelo menos quatro revisões sistemáticas que podem ser analisadas e fornecer respostas mais consistentes a essas perguntas. Além disso, descobertas futuras podem apoiar pesquisas mais precisas, ajudar na formulação de políticas e práticas clínicas.

https://doi.org/10.47066/2966-4837.e00592024pt

Palavras-chave

Terapia Respiratória; Cirurgia Torácica; Revisão de Literatura

Referências

1. Vervoort D, Elfaki LA, Servito M, Morales KYH, Kanyepi K. Redefining global cardiac surgery through an intersectionality lens. Med Humanit. 2024;50(1):109-15. https:// doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2023-012801. PMid:38388185.

2. Pieczkoski SM, Margarites AGF, Sbruzzi G. Noninvasive ventilation during immediate postoperative period in cardiac surgery patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;32(4):301-11. https:// doi.org/10.21470/1678-9741-2017-0032. PMid:28977203.

3. Wu Q, Xiang G, Song J, et al. Effects of non-invasive ventilation in subjects undergoing cardiac surgery on length of hospital stay and cardiac-pulmonary complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Dis. 2020;12(4):1507-19. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2020.02.30. PMid:32395288.

4. Zhou X, Pan J, Wang H, Xu Z, Zhao L, Chen B. Prophylactic noninvasive respiratory support in the immediate postoperative period after cardiac surgery - a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMC Pulm Med. 2023;23(1):233. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-023-02525-1. PMid:37380968.

5. Gates M, Gates A, Pieper D, et al. Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement. BMJ. 2022;378:e070849. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-070849. PMid:35944924.

6. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of in‐ terventions. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.

7. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan – a web and mobile app for systematic review. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016- 0384-4. PMid:27919275.

8. Crocker TF, Lam N, Jordão M, et al. Risk-of-bias assessment using Cochrane’s revised tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was useful but challenging and resource-intensive: observations from a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;161:39-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.06.015. PMid:37364620.

9. Matos AP, Pegorari MS. How to classify clinical trials using the PEDro scale? J Lasers Med Sci. 2020;11(1):1-2. https:// doi.org/10.15171/jlms.2020.01. PMid:32099619.

10. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008. PMid:28935701.

11. Belbasis L, Bellou V, Ioannidis JPA. Conducting umbrella reviews. BMJ Med. 2022;1(1):e000071. https://doi.org/10.1136/ bmjmed-2021-000071. PMid:36936579.

12. Manager R. (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.4. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2020.

13. Choi GJ, Kang H. Introduction to umbrella reviews as a useful evidence-based practice. J Lipid Atheroscler. 2023;12(1):3-11. https://doi.org/10.12997/jla.2023.12.1.3. PMid:36761061.


Submetido em:
10/01/2025

Aceito em:
09/12/2025

6984a51ea9539563ba22427a assobrafir Articles
Links & Downloads

BJR

Share this page
Page Sections