Mortality and morbidity in acutely ill adults treated with liberal versus conservative oxygen therapy (IOTA): a systematic review and meta-analysis.
By D. Chu, L. Kim, P. Young, N. Zamiri, S. Almenawer, Roman Jaeschke, W. Szczeklik, Holger J. Schünemann, J. Neary, W. Alhazzani. The Lancet, 2018
612 citations recorded by the source corpus.
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.
Subfields: Epidemiology, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7a2fa87feac9c204c6d4d96e6228046a9330f528
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Epidemiology
In Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
Citations in the corpus
- Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (2020, background): “Furthermore, a meta-regression showed a linear association between risk of death and higher SpO2 targets [67].”
- The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: fifth edition (2019, methodology): “A recent meta-analysis based on high-quality evidence [90] showed that prolonged liberal oxygen therapy in acutely ill adults increased mortality without improving other patient-important outcomes.”