Mortality and morbidity in acutely ill adults treated with liberal versus conservative oxygen therapy (IOTA): a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Lancet (London, England) · 2018-04-26 · Meta-analysis
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Supplemental oxygen is often administered liberally to acutely ill adults, but the credibility of the evidence for this practice is unclear. We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of liberal versus conservative oxygen therapy in acutely ill adults. METHODS: In the Improving Oxygen Therapy in Acute-illness (IOTA) systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, HealthSTAR, LILACS, PapersFirst, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry from inception to Oct 25, 2017, for randomised controlled trials comparing liberal and conservative oxygen therapy in acutely ill adults (aged ≥18 years). Studies limited to patients with chronic respiratory diseases or psychiatric disease, patients on extracorporeal life support, or patients treated with hyperbaric oxygen therapy or elective surgery were excluded. We screened studies and extracted summary estimates independently and in duplicate. We also extracted individual patient-level data from survival curves. The main outcomes were mortality (in-hospital, at 30 days, and at longest follow-up) and morbidity (disability at longest follow-up, risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia, any hospital-acquired infection, and length of hospital stay) assessed by random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed quality of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017065697. FINDINGS: 25 randomised controlled trials enrolled 16 037 patients with sepsis, critical illness, stroke, trauma, myocardial infarction, or cardiac arrest, and patients who had emergency surgery. Compared with a conservative oxygen strategy, a liberal oxygen strategy (median baseline saturation of peripheral oxygen [SpO2] across trials, 96% [range 94-99%, IQR 96-98]) increased mortality in-hospital (relative risk [RR] 1·21, 95% CI 1·03-1·43, I2=0%, high quality), at 30 days (RR 1·14, 95% CI 1·01-1·29, I2=0%, high quality), and at longest follow-up (RR 1·10, 95% CI 1·00-1·20, I2=0%, high quality). Morbidity outcomes were similar between groups. Findings were robust to trial sequential, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses. INTERPRETATION: In acutely ill adults, high-quality evidence shows that liberal oxygen therapy increases mortality without improving other patient-important outcomes. Supplemental oxygen might become unfavourable above an SpO2 range of 94-96%. These results support the conservative administration of oxygen therapy. FUNDING: None.
Abstract © the authors or publisher, via PubMed. Reuse and removal
Tags
Mortality & survival · Other drugs · Oxygen
Related articles
- High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus noninvasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure related to suspected or confirmed acute heart failure: a systematic review with meta-analysis. (Eur J Emerg Med, 2024)
- High-flow nasal cannula reduces intubation rate in patients with COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure: a meta-analysis and systematic review. (BMJ Open, 2023)
- Effect of noninvasive respiratory support on interstitial lung disease with acute respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (Can J Respir Ther, 2023)
- High-flow nasal cannula for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (Heart Lung, 2021)
- Oxygen therapy in the pre-hospital setting for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. (Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2020)
- A Systematic Review of the Effects of Hyperoxia in Acutely Ill Patients: Should We Aim for Less? (Biomed Res Int, 2018)