IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0304745.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Closed-loop oxygen control for critically ill patients––A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline Gomes Mól
  • Aléxia Gabriela da Silva Vieira
  • Bianca Maria Schneider Pereira Garcia
  • Emanuel dos Santos Pereira
  • Raquel Afonso Caserta Eid
  • Marcus J Schultz
  • Ana Carolina Pereira Nunes Pinto
  • Ricardo Kenji Nawa

Abstract

Background: The impact of closed-loop control systems to titrate oxygen flow in critically ill patients, including their effectiveness, efficacy, workload and safety, remains unclear. This systematic review investigated the utilization of closed-loop oxygen systems for critically ill patients in comparison to manual oxygen titration systems focusing on these topics. Methods and findings: A search was conducted across several databases including MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, LOVE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization on March 3, 2022, with subsequent updates made on June 27, 2023. Evidence databases were searched for randomized clinical parallel or crossover studies investigating closed-loop oxygen control systems for critically ill patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines. The analysis was conducted using Review Manager software, adopting the mean difference or standardized mean difference with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for continuous variables or risk ratio with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. The main outcome of interest was the percentage of time spent in the peripheral arterial oxygen saturation target. Secondary outcomes included time for supplemental oxygen weaning, length of stay, mortality, costs, adverse events, and workload of healthcare professional. A total of 37 records from 21 studies were included in this review with a total of 1,577 participants. Compared with manual oxygen titration, closed-loop oxygen control systems increased the percentage of time in the prescribed SpO2 target, mean difference (MD) 25.47; 95% CI 19.7, 30.0], with moderate certainty of evidence. Current evidence also shows that closed-loop oxygen control systems have the potential to reduce the percentage of time with hypoxemia (MD -0.98; 95% CI -1.68, -0.27) and healthcare workload (MD -4.94; 95% CI -7.28, -2.61) with low certainty of evidence. Conclusion: Closed-loop oxygen control systems increase the percentage of time in the preferred SpO2 targets and may reduce healthcare workload. Trial registration: PROSPERO: CRD42022306033.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline Gomes Mól & Aléxia Gabriela da Silva Vieira & Bianca Maria Schneider Pereira Garcia & Emanuel dos Santos Pereira & Raquel Afonso Caserta Eid & Marcus J Schultz & Ana Carolina Pereira Nunes Pi, 2024. "Closed-loop oxygen control for critically ill patients––A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(6), pages 1-21, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0304745
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304745
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0304745
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0304745&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0304745?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0304745. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.