Effectiveness of diaphragmatic ultrasound as a predictor of successful weaning from mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Parada-Gereda, Henry M.; Tibaduiza, Adriana L.; Rico-Mendoza, Alejandro; Molano Franco, Daniel; Nieto, Victor H.; Arias-Ortiz, Wanderley A.; Pérez-Terán, Purificación; Masclans Enviz, Joan Ramon

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04430-9

Effectiveness of diaphragmatic ultrasound as a predictor of successful weaning from mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Licencia

Citación

Parada-Gereda HM, Tibaduiza AL, Rico-Mendoza A, Molano-Franco D, Nieto VH, Arias-Ortiz WA, et al. Effectiveness of diaphragmatic ultrasound as a predictor of successful weaning from mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2023 May 5;27(1):174. DOI: 10.1186/s13054-023-04430-9

Resumen

Background: Several measurements have been used to predict the success of weaning from mechanical ventilation; however, their efficacy varies in different studies. In recent years, diaphragmatic ultrasound has been used for this purpose. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of diaphragmatic ultrasound in predicting the success of weaning from mechanical ventilation. Methods: Two investigators independently searched PUBMED, TRIP, EMBASE, COCHRANE, SCIENCE DIRECT, and LILACS for articles published between January 2016 and July 2022. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool; additionally, the certainty of the evidence is evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology. Sensitivity and specificity analysis was performed for diaphragmatic excursion and diaphragmatic thickening fraction; positive and negative likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) with their confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated by random effects analysis, summary receiver operating characteristic curve was estimated. Sources of heterogeneity were explored by subgroup analysis and bivariate meta-regression. Results: Twenty-six studies were included, of which 19 were included in the meta-analysis (1204 patients). For diaphragmatic excursion, sensitivity was 0.80 (95% CI 0.77-0.83), specificity 0.80 (95% CI 0.75-0.84), area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve 0.87 and DOR 17.1 (95% CI 10.2-28.6). For the thickening fraction, sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI 0.82-0.87), specificity 0.75 (95% CI 0.69-0.80), area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve 0.87 and DOR 17.2 (95% CI 9.16-32.3). There was heterogeneity among the included studies. When performing a subgroup analysis and excluding studies with atypical cutoff values, sensitivity and specificity increased for diaphragmatic thickening fraction; sensitivity increased and specificity decreased for diaphragmatic excursion; when comparing studies using pressure support (PS) versus T-tube, there was no significant difference in sensitivity and specificity; bivariate meta-regression analysis shows that patient position at the time of testing was a factor of heterogeneity in the included studies. Conclusions: Measurement of diaphragmatic excursion and diaphragmatic thickening fraction predict the probability of successful weaning from mechanical ventilation with satisfactory diagnostic accuracy; however, significant heterogeneity was evident in the different included studies. Studies of high methodological quality in specific subgroups of patients in intensive care units are needed to evaluate the role of diaphragmatic ultrasound as a predictor of weaning from mechanical ventilation.