https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9493-0150
Figures
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.
Citation: Mól CG, Vieira AGdS, Garcia BMSP, dos Santos Pereira E, Eid RAC, Schultz MJ, et al. (2024) Closed-loop oxygen control for critically ill patients––A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 19(6): e0304745. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304745
Editor: Vijay Hadda, AIIMS: All India Institute of Medical Sciences, INDIA
Received: February 5, 2024; Accepted: May 16, 2024; Published: June 12, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Mól et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: MJS was the team leader of Research and New Technologies at Hamilton Medical AG, Bonaduz, Switzerland, from January 2022 until January 2023. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Introduction
Critically ill patients frequently require supplemental oxygen due to the clinical manifestation of inadequate gas exchange [1,2]. Oxygen administration can be considered a lifesaving treatment and may reduce the mortality and morbidity of hypoxemic patients [3,4]. Oxygen is commonly utilized for critically ill patients and its prescription is frequently observed for patients undergoing respiratory support, including mechanical ventilation to correct or prevent hypoxemia [3,5,6].
Hypoxemia can result from many factors, such as lung and cardiovascular diseases, or reduced oxygen levels at high altitudes and can potentially progress to hypoxia, leading to potential organ damage [7–10]. In addition, hyperoxemia, the presence of excess oxygen, also carries risks, including oxidative stress and potential harm to vital organs [11–14]. Thus, finding the right balance is crucial [15–20]. Therefore, healthcare professionals must carefully titrate oxygen to ensure that they are adequate for the patient’s needs, minimizing the risks associated with both hypoxemia and hyperoxemia while optimizing patient outcomes.
The literature suggests safe and acceptable targets of peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) ranging between 92–98% for patients without lung diseases and 88–92% for patients with previous lung diseases [21]. However, manual adjustment of the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) to precisely deliver oxygen within the target is both challenging and time-consuming for healthcare professionals [22–24]. Therefore, the adoption of automated technologies may be considered to partially reduce workload of healthcare professionals.
Closed-loop oxygen control systems have been developed to provide continuing monitoring and adjustments of oxygen titration based on patients’ SpO2, avoiding and treating hypoxemia and hyperoxemia episodes [23,24]. These systems are based on the feedback principle to maintain a target saturation prescribed by continuing titrating oxygen levels [22–24]. It remains uncertain whether closed-loop oxygen control systems are effective, efficient, and safe. It is also uncertain whether these systems affect the workload of healthcare providers. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on these topics.
Methods
This review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines [25,26]. This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO [CRD42022306033], and additional details are available in the published protocol [27].
Search strategy
The search was performed on March 3, 2022, and updated on June 27, 2023, in the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, and LOVE evidence databases (S1–S6 Tables in S1 File). Furthermore, a search was performed at the ClinicalTrials.gov website and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to find ‘ongoing’ and ‘unpublished’ studies. There were no restrictions to language, date, or type of publication.
Eligibility criteria
The eligibility criteria [28] were (P) population: adult ICU patients requiring supplemental oxygen; (I) intervention: any system or device that allows an automatic oxygen titration, including for use with invasive or noninvasive ventilation or with low- or high-flow oxygen therapy; (C) comparator: manual adjustments of oxygen; and (O) outcome: percentage of time in the SpO2 target, time for weaning from oxygen, length of stay, mortality, costs, adverse events, and workload of healthcare professionals. Different records identified by the same registration number were grouped and considered as a single study. This way, we guarantee that studies with multiple publications were included just once.
Study selection
Two investigators (C.G.M. and A.G.V.) independently screened the studies retrieved by the searches. A third investigator (R.K.N.) was consulted to resolve potential disagreements, if necessary.
Outcome measures
The primary outcome was the time in the SpO2 target, defined as the percentage of time in which the SpO2 values remained in the predefined range (e.g., 92 to 96% or 88 to 92%). Secondary outcomes included time for weaning from supplemental oxygen, defined as the total time spent in oxygen support during hospitalization, length of stay, mortality, costs, adverse events, and workload of healthcare professionals, defined as the need for the professional to provide oxygen adjustments (e.g., number of manual adjustments; time spent providing adjustments).
Assessment of characteristics of studies
Characteristics and outcome data from the included studies were independently extracted by two investigators (C.G.M. and A.G.S.) and revised by a third investigator (A.C.P.) using a predefined data collection form.
Risk of bias
The risk of bias for the outcomes was determined by using the ‘Cochrane Risk of Bias 2’ (RoB2) tool for randomized and crossover trials [29,30]. The risk of bias arising from the randomization process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome and selection of the reported result were assessed. For crossover studies the risk of bias arising from period and carry-over effects was also assessed.
Data synthesis and analysis
The mean difference or standardized mean difference was adopted to analyze continuous variables, with a 95% confidence interval [95% CI]. Dichotomous outcomes are presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs. When possible, skewed data were adjusted for mean and standard deviation using Wan’s methods and the RevMan Calculator [31]. For figures with good resolution, we extracted data using the ‘Webplotdigitizer’ website. For crossover studies, the first period was used to perform the analysis to avoid carry-over effects. When substantial heterogeneity was identified (I2 ≥ 50%), we conducted a predefined subgroup analysis for the type of devices. All analyses were performed using Review Manager software (RevMan, Version 5.4.1. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020).
Assessment of certainty of evidence
The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to measure and summarize the overall certainty of the current evidence of each outcome [32] through the ‘GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool’ software [33].
Post hoc analysis
Two additional outcomes were added after peer review of the published protocol [27] to provide additional information to analyze the data along with the percentage of time in the SpO2 target, as follows: (a) the percentage of time with hyperoxemia and (b) the percentage of time with hypoxemia. The criteria for hypoxemia and hyperoxemia were considered based on the definitions provided in the studies. We were concerned with carefully verifying the direction of effect and the impact of these data in meta-analyses, describing the contribution of these trials when necessary. In addition, we conducted two posthoc analyses, one comparing the percentage of time in the SpO2 target for subgroups according to the duration of the intervention, and one in subgroups according to the reason for admission, i.e., medical or surgical.
Results
Studies included
A total of 14,256 records were identified, and 37 records from 21 studies [34–54] enrolling 1,577 participants were included (Fig 1 and Table 1 and S7–S9 Tables in S1 File). Of those, 13 studies [34–38,40,42,45,51,52] investigated closed-loop oxygen control systems for use with invasive mechanical ventilation, and 8 studies [41,43,44,46–50] investigated closed-loop oxygen control systems for use with noninvasive respiratory support. Nine studies [36,37,40,44,46–49,54] could be used in the meta-analysis. Further details can be found in the S10 and S11 Tables in S1 File.
Abbreviations: CENTRAL = Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; CINAHL = Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; EMBASE = Excerpta Medica dataBASE; LILACS = Latin American the Caribbean Literature in Health Sciences; MEDLINE = Medical Literature Analysis and the Retrieval System Online; PICO = Patient Intervention Comparator Outcome.
Risk of bias for randomized clinical trials
Most of the outcomes presented some concerns [40,42,46,47,50,51,54] mainly due to insufficient information on the randomization process such as allocation concealment and baseline characteristics (Fig 2). Only for costs [48], all domains presented a low risk of bias due to the completed and desirable information provided. For adverse events, length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU), mortality and time to oxygen weaning, in addition to concerns due to the lack of information from the randomization process, the lack of details on the pre-specified analysis defined a priori motivated the judgment of some concerns among the evaluators [47,50,51,54]. Of note, for adverse events from the seven studies that evaluated this outcome, in addition to the concerns cited about the randomization process, one study [51] lacks information from blinding of outcome assessors.
D1 = randomization process; D2 = deviations from the intended interventions; D3 = missing outcome data; D4 = measurement of the outcome; D5 = selection of the reported results. Abbreviations: ASV = adaptive support ventilation; ICU = intensive care unit; PSV = pressure support ventilation; O2 = Oxygen; RoB2 = cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool for randomized clinical trials; SpO2 = peripheral oxygen saturation.
Risk of bias for randomized cross-over trials
Adverse event is the only outcome that included five studies and only one of them [43] had an overall ’low risk’ of bias (Fig 3). We were concerned about the actual impact of the insufficient information available to assess both proper randomization [34,38,39,45,49,53] and appropriate carry-over time in all outcomes [38,39,45,49,35]. As information from the first phase was not available for most of the crossovers, it was not possible to precisely assess whether there was a deviation from the intended interventions [35,38,43]. We did not find any evidence of missing outcome data or differences between groups for ’measure of outcome’ for all outcomes planned in this review and thus considered it as low risk of bias. Furthermore, it was not possible to assess whether a selection of the reported result of the outcomes was due to the absence or insufficient reporting information from the registered protocol [35,45].
D1 = randomization process; DS = bias arising from period and carryover effects; D2 = deviations from the intended interventions; D3 = missing outcome data; D4 = measurement of the outcome; D5 = selection of the reported result. Abbreviations: ASV = adaptive support ventilation; ICU = intensive care unit; FiO2 = fraction of inspired oxygen; HFNC = high-flow nasal cannula; PSV = pressure support ventilation; SpO2 = peripheral oxygen saturation.
Time spent in predefined SpO2 targets, percentage of time with hypoxemia or hyperoxemia, and weaning
The included studies had different SpO2 targets (S1 Fig in S1 File). In 7 studies [37,40,44,46–49], closed-loop oxygen titration devices increased the percentage of time in the predefined SpO2 target with substantial heterogeneity, not completely explained by the planned and post hoc subgroup analysis (Fig 4, S2 and S3 Figs and S11 Table in S1 File). The sensitivity analysis for the percentage of time in the SpO2 target, included only trials with a low risk of bias (S4 Fig in S1 File) and showed similar estimates of the intervention and inconsistency. There’s no clinically important difference in effect estimates between the meta-analysis encompassing all studies and the one focusing solely on studies with a low risk of bias, any inconsistency is likely to be insignificant [55]. Despite the observed asymmetry in the funnel plot (S5 Fig in S1 File), we cannot definitively attribute it to publication bias due to the limited number of studies included in this outcome. In 6 studies [36,37,40,46,48,49], closed-loop oxygen titration reduced the percentage of time with hypoxemia, with substantial unexplained heterogeneity, due to imprecise results of 2 studies [36,49] (S6 Fig in S1 File). In 4 studies [36,46,48,49] closed-loop oxygen titration did not reduce the percentage of time with hyperoxemia, with substantial heterogeneity and inconsistency in 2 studies [36,46] (S7 Fig in S1 File).
Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval; HFNC = high flow nasal cannula; i-ASV = INTELLiVENT-Adaptive Support Ventilation; SD = standard deviation.
Four studies [38,43,45,53] were not included in the quantitative analyses due to the absence of reported data from the first crossover period. The mean percentage of time spent in the SpO2 target, ranging from 92 to 96%, was higher in the intervention group when compared to the control group, 83 (SD 21) versus 33 (SD 36), respectively [45]. These findings were similar to one study [43] published, in which the estimated effect presented, a mean difference (MD) of 38.5% [95% CI, 27.8 to 49.3]. One study [38] investigated 265 mechanically ventilated patients during daily nursing procedures. The closed-loop group spent a mean percentage of time in the SpO2 target of 48 (SD 37), compared with the control group of 43 (SD 37). One study [53] investigated the duration during which mechanically ventilated patients maintained their SpO2 within the optimal breath zone, considering the SpO2 target and FiO2. They found that patients in the closed-loop group spent 61% of their time within the optimal oxygenation range, a statistically significant improvement compared to the 52% observed with conventional ventilation. One study [52] evaluated the time spent in the optimal zone (i.e., SpO2 target) in 60 participants. The mean time spent in the closed-loop and control group remained at the optimal zone of 192 (SD 52), and 25 (SD 124) minutes, respectively. This study [52] was not included in the quantitative analysis due to the absence of information on all patients included to change mean and SD data from minutes to percentage of time.
Clinical outcomes
Of all included studies, 10 studies [36,37,40,42,44,46–49,54] evaluated length of stay, and 10 studies [36,37,39,40,42,45,47,49,50,54] evaluated mortality. In most studies, the intervention was not applied throughout the total duration of oxygen supplementation (S11 Table in S1 File). We considered it inappropriate to meta-analyze these details.
Costs
Of all studies, only one study [48] investigated hospitalization costs, and 2 studies [45,49] evaluated oxygen consumption. These studies suggest that closed-loop oxygen titration systems may result in a reduction in costs and oxygen consumption (S11 Table in S1 File).
Adverse events
Of all studies, 14 studies [34,35,37–39,42–48,51,52] reported adverse events. Quantitative analyses were not performed due to the wide variety and the absence of a standardized definition of adverse events (S11 and S12 Tables in S1 File).
Healthcare workload
Of the 7 studies [35–37,42,44,49,54] that evaluated the workload of healthcare professionals, 4 studies [36,37,44,54] were included in a quantitative analysis, suggesting that closed-loop oxygen control may reduce healthcare workload (Fig 5). In the sensitivity analyses excluding trials with some concerns according to the risk of bias assessment (S8 Fig in S1 File), we observed a slight increase in the heterogeneity (I2 = 83%) maintaining the direction of the effect of interventions (MD -4.94, 95% CI -9.43 to -0.46).
Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval; HFNC = high flow nasal cannula; i-ASV = INTELLiVENT-Adaptive Support Ventilation; SD = standard deviation.
Discussion
The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis show that closed-loop oxygen control devices may increase the percentage of time in the SpO2 target and reduce the percentage of time with hypoxemia. Closed-loop oxygen titration was found not to be associated with a lower percentage of time with hyperoxemia, time for weaning supplemental oxygen, adverse events, length of stay, and mortality. The evidence suggests that closed-loop oxygen titration may reduce costs, oxygen consumption and healthcare workload.
Although both are harmful, episodes of hypoxemia (i.e., SpO2 < 90 to 92%) are frequently regarded as a ‘red flag’ when compared with hyperoxemia episodes (i.e., SpO2 > 94–96 to 100%). Consequently, supplemental oxygen is typically considered to be widely available and liberally administered, with little to no attention given to avoiding excessive use. Closed-loop systems for oxygen titration seem to increase the time spent in the SpO2 target, contributing to the correct dose adjustment of oxygen and avoiding hypoxia episodes. However, it may not effectively reduce the occurrence of hyperoxemia, particularly in mechanical ventilation systems, or when high oxygen targets are being used. For instance, one trial [36] showed a high incidence of hyperoxemia with automatic oxygen control; however, this incidence was also high in the control group (35% vs. 33%). The included studies reported the use of different upper limits of SpO2 target and timing of intervention, making it difficult to compare the results. In this scenario, the predefined width range could have influenced the results of the percentage of time in the SpO2 target, hyperoxemia and hypoxemia. Substantial heterogeneity was also found for the percentage of time spent in the SpO2 target, not fully explained by subgroup analysis. The duration of the intervention and the different patient characteristics, could explain the substantial heterogeneity observed among the studies included in the subgroup analysis of patients undergoing mechanical ventilation support.
Supplemental oxygen use is frequently observed in patients admitted to hospitals and is considered one of the most common treatments provided to critically ill patients. The underrecognition and delay in the correction of hypoxemia remains a major problem in clinical practice associated with an increase in mortality [56], especially in settings where resources are limited and in countries or regions [57]. In addition to socioeconomic factors, the health crisis triggered by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted inequities related to an unprecedented need for oxygen supply and other resources, such as ICU beds, specialized professionals, invasive and noninvasive ventilators, and other medical supplies [58], and consequently, the indices of mortality in patients with and without COVID-19 significantly increased [59,60].
Investments in technology to develop new innovative devices for closed-loop oxygen titration that can efficiently manage resources have grown exponentially in recent years for both clinical and research uses. This was also observed in our findings, as most of the included trials were industry-sponsored investigations. Furthermore, unusual situations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance and need to rationally use oxygen in clinical practice, as prolonged use of unnecessary supplemental oxygen increases health costs, ICU, and hospital stays, exposing patients to infections and psychosocial complications resulting from the hospitalization process. Despite the benefits of closed-loop devices for oxygen titration, the clinical use at bedside is still limited, due to the high initial investment necessary to acquire such technology. The direct cost related to closed-loop oxygen titration systems was evaluated in only one study [48], and oxygen consumption, an indirect measure of cost, was evaluated in two studies [45,49], showing inaccurate results due to the small number of included patients. Future studies should investigate ‘cost outcome’ to assist decision-makers in providing an assertive plan for closed-loop oxygen titration device implementation for clinical and research uses.
Patients admitted to the ICU are frequently exposed to different procedures, such as physical therapy and rehabilitation interventions (e.g., airway clearance, suctioning, and positioning), which can promote respiratory and hemodynamic changes according to their clinical condition. In addition, lung dynamics are directly affected by the patient’s clinical presentation. Thus, it can require frequent parameter adjustments during invasive or noninvasive ventilation support to maintain the predefined target of SpO2, increasing the workload of healthcare professionals. Closed-loop devices cannot replace healthcare professionals as they cannot handle complex clinical changes in oxygen adjustments. However, they can ease the workload of professionals by automating oxygen adjustments and freeing up time for patient care. These devices do not eliminate the need for clinical discussions and adjustments, especially for significant changes. They require alarms and data visualization for informed decision-making. While their safety is not clearly defined, they offer a potential way to reduce bedside tasks; however, more research on adverse events is needed due to oxygen-related risks. The identification and reporting processes of adverse events can be challenging. Researchers may consider the inclusion of adverse events as an outcome, reporting additional details of the definition, occurrence, and classification of events.
Strengths and limitations
This review has strengths that have helped reduce potential bias in the review process, such as a thorough literature search, rigorous and well-established methods to minimize bias, including multiple reviewers to independently screen abstracts, review studies, extract data, assess the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence outlined by the Cochrane Collaboration [30]. In addition, primary study authors were contacted to provide additional information, data, or clarifications when needed. For crossover randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we also contacted authors to request data from the first phase of interventions to describe baseline characteristics and results separately from patients randomized to each stage. We, therefore, believe that it is unlikely that we missed any relevant trials. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis provided important insights. Additional studies investigating the use of closed-loop oxygen systems through the entire duration of oxygen support should be developed to improve the findings for certainty of evidence.
However, this review has some limitations. First, due to the short intervention period in most studies it was difficult to establish a direct relationship between the device and the patient’s length of stay, mortality and time for oxygen weaning. It is important to emphasize that most studies in this meta-analysis featured brief intervention periods, ranging from only a few hours to 24 hours. This limitation diminishes the generalizability of the results to patients necessitating prolonged oxygen therapy, typically those in the most critical condition. Second, despite our considerable efforts to mitigate publication bias, we were unable to reliably assess it through the funnel plot due to the limited number of available studies. Third, there was insufficient information about the randomization process of some studies, so we recommended the use of reliable methods (e.g., computer-generated random numbers) and detailed reporting to ensure homogeneity between groups. Fourth, the washout period between interventions of crossover RCTs was short and heterogeneous, and the possibility of the carry-over effect cannot be ruled out. Although the devices provide the same substance (oxygen), the type of device can influence the patient’s stability. Fifth, the findings of the invasive mechanical ventilation subgroup should be interpreted with caution. Automatic mechanical ventilation modes adjust a group of ventilation settings such as tidal volume, respiratory rate, FiO2, and positive end-expiratory pressure. Thus, the findings of this review regarding the percentage of time spent in the SpO2 target cannot be solely attributed to the oxygen titration. Additionally, the number of adjustments in ventilation parameters may also have influenced healthcare workload outcomes.
In summary, while closed-loop oxygen titration systems probably increase the percentage of time spent within desired SpO2 ranges and reduce healthcare workload and costs, their safety remains uncertain. Adverse events are likely underreported in existing studies. Moreover, the extent to which these systems enhance efficiency, such as by reducing the duration of oxygen weaning, and even more importantly, by affecting length of stay and mortality rates, remains unclear. This uncertainty primarily stems from the limited duration of the intervention in the scarce, and small existing studies. Future research should focus on evaluating effectiveness, safety, and efficacy over longer periods, and prioritize patient-centered endpoints.
Supporting information
S1 File. Additional analysis, detailed search strategies, and supplementary information on the included studies.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304745.s001
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge Dr Thiago Domingos Corrêa for providing administrative support. We would like to thank Helena Spalic for the valuable contribution proofreading this systematic review.
References
- 1. O’Driscoll BR, Howard LS, Earis J, Mak V, British Thoracic Society Emergency Oxygen Guideline Group, BTS Emergency Oxygen Guideline Development Group. BTS guideline for oxygen use in adults in healthcare and emergency settings. Thorax [Internet]. 2017;72:ii1–90. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-209729.
- 2. Petersson J, Glenny RW. Gas exchange and ventilation–perfusion relationships in the lung. Eur Respir J [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2022 Aug 24];44:1023–41. Available from: https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/erj/44/4/1023. pmid:25063240
- 3. Gilbert-Kawai ET, Mitchell K, Martin D, Carlisle J, Grocott MPW. Permissive hypoxaemia versus normoxaemia for mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2014;CD009931. Available from: pmid:24801519
- 4. de Jonge E, Peelen L, Keijzers PJ, Joore H, de Lange D, van der Voort PHJ, et al. Association between administered oxygen, arterial partial oxygen pressure and mortality in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients. Crit Care [Internet]. 2008;12:R156. Available from: pmid:19077208
- 5. Barbateskovic M, Schjørring OL, Russo Krauss S, Jakobsen JC, Meyhoff CS, Dahl RM, et al. Higher versus lower fraction of inspired oxygen or targets of arterial oxygenation for adults admitted to the intensive care unit. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2019;2019. Available from: pmid:31773728
- 6. O’Driscoll BR, Smith R. Oxygen Use in Critical Illness. Respir Care [Internet]. 2019;64:1293–307. Available from: pmid:31409632
- 7. Barbateskovic M, Schjørring OL, Krauss SR, Meyhoff CS, Jakobsen JC, Rasmussen BS, et al. Higher vs Lower Oxygenation Strategies in Acutely Ill Adults. Chest [Internet]. 2021;159:154–73. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.07.015.
- 8. Valencia Gallardo JM, Solé Violán J, Rodríguez de Castro F. [Translated article] Oxygen therapy. Considerations regarding its use in acute ill patients. Arch Bronconeumol [Internet]. 2022;58:T102–3. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arbres.2021.03.024.
- 9. Chu DK, Kim LH-Y, Young PJ, Zamiri N, Almenawer SA, Jaeschke R, et al. Mortality and morbidity in acutely ill adults treated with liberal versus conservative oxygen therapy (IOTA): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet [Internet]. 2018;391:1693–705. Available from: pmid:29726345
- 10. Li L, Zhang Y, Wang P, Chong W, Hai Y, Xu P, et al. Conservative versus liberal oxygen therapy for acutely ill medical patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud [Internet]. 2021;118:103924. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.103924.
- 11. Dahl RM, Grønlykke L, Haase N, Holst LB, Perner A, Wetterslev J, et al. Variability in targeted arterial oxygenation levels in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand [Internet]. 2015;59:859–69. Available from: pmid:25914095
- 12. Helmerhorst HJF, Arts DL, Schultz MJ, van der Voort PHJ, Abu-Hanna A, de Jonge E, et al. Metrics of Arterial Hyperoxia and Associated Outcomes in Critical Care. Crit Care Med [Internet]. 2017;45:187–95. Available from: pmid:27763912
- 13. Kilgannon JH, Jones AE, Shapiro NI, Angelos MG, Milcarek B, Hunter K, et al. Association between arterial hyperoxia following resuscitation from cardiac arrest and in-hospital mortality. JAMA [Internet]. 2010;303:2165–71. Available from: pmid:20516417
- 14. Lilien TA, van Meenen DMP, Schultz MJ, Bos LDJ, Bem RA. Hyperoxia-induced lung injury in acute respiratory distress syndrome: what is its relative impact? Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol [Internet]. 2023;325:L9–16. Available from: pmid:37129255
- 15. Benoît Z, Wicky S, Fischer J-F, Frascarolo P, Chapuis C, Spahn DR, et al. The Effect of Increased Fio2 Before Tracheal Extubation on Postoperative Atelectasis. Anesthesia & Analgesia [Internet]. 2002 [cited 2022 Aug 24];95:1777. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/anesthesia-analgesia/FullText/2002/12000/The_Effect_of_Increased_Fio2_Before_Tracheal.58.aspx. pmid:12456458
- 16. Rothen HU, Sporre B, Engberg G, Wegenius G, Högman M, Hedenstierna G. Influence of gas composition on recurrence of atelectasis after a reexpansion maneuver during general anesthesia. Anesthesiology [Internet]. 1995;82:832–42. Available from: pmid:7717553
- 17. Rothen HU, Sporre B, Engberg G, Wegenius G, Reber A, Hedenstierna G. Prevention of atelectasis during general anaesthesia. Lancet [Internet]. 1995;345:1387–91. Available from: pmid:7760608
- 18. Munshi L, Ferguson ND. Evolving Issues in Oxygen Therapy in Acute Care Medicine. JAMA [Internet]. 2020;323:607–8. Available from: pmid:31977030
- 19. Martin DS, Grocott MPW. Oxygen therapy in critical illness: precise control of arterial oxygenation and permissive hypoxemia. Crit Care Med [Internet]. 2013;41:423–32. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e31826a44f6.
- 20. Lumb AB, Walton LJ. Perioperative oxygen toxicity. Anesthesiol Clin [Internet]. 2012;30:591–605. Available from: pmid:23089497
- 21. Semler MW, Casey JD, Lloyd BD, Hastings PG, Hays MA, Stollings JL, et al. Oxygen-Saturation Targets for Critically Ill Adults Receiving Mechanical Ventilation. N Engl J Med [Internet]. 2022;387:1759–69. Available from: pmid:36278971
- 22. Rush B, Celi LA, Stone DJ. Applying machine learning to continuously monitored physiological data. J Clin Monit Comput [Internet]. 2019;33:887–93. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10877-018-0219-z.
- 23. Denault M-H, Péloquin F, Lajoie A-C, Lacasse Y. Automatic versus Manual Oxygen Titration in Patients Requiring Supplemental Oxygen in the Hospital: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Respiration [Internet]. 2019;98:178–88. Available from: pmid:31129662
- 24. Sanchez-Morillo D, Olaby O, Fernandez-Granero MA, Leon-Jimenez A. Physiological closed-loop control in intelligent oxygen therapy: A review. Comput Methods Programs Biomed [Internet]. 2017;146:101–8. Available from: pmid:28688479
- 25. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol [Internet]. 2009;62:e1–34. Available from: pmid:19631507
- 26. Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Chandler J, Welch VA, Higgins JPT, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2019;10:14651858. Available from: https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/files/223404871/Cumpston_et_al_2019_Cochrane_Database_of_Systematic_Reviews.pdf. pmid:31643080
- 27. Mol CG, Vieira AG da S, Garcia BMSP, Pereira EDS, Eid RAC, Pinto P, et al. Closed-loop oxygen control for patients with hypoxaemia during hospitalisation: a living systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2022;12:e062299. Available from: pmid:36523244
- 28.
Website [Internet]. Available from: Thomas J, Kneale D, Mckenzie JE, et al. Chapter 2: Determining the scope of the review and the questions it will address. In 2021;6.Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
- 29. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials [Internet]. BMJ. 2011. p. d5928–d5928. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928.
- 30.
Higgins JPT, Thomas J. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [Internet]. John Wiley & Sons; 2019. Available from: https://books.google.com/books/about/Cochrane_Handbook_for_Systematic_Reviews.html?hl=&id=G1SyDwAAQBAJ.
- 31. Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range [Internet]. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2014. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-135.
- 32.
GRADE handbook [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jan 31]. Available from: http://guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook.
- 33.
GRADEpro [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jan 31]. Available from: http://gradepro.org.
- 34. Arnal J-M, Wysocki M, Demory D, Durish G, Laubscher T, Novotni D, et al. Prospective Randomized Cross-over Controlled Study Comparing Adaptive Support Ventilation (ASV) And A Fully Close Loop Control Solution (Intellivent®) In Adult ICU Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure [Internet]. B42. INVASIVE MECHANICAL VENTILATION: SOUP TO NUTS. 2010. Available from:
- 35. Arnal J-M, Wysocki M, Novotni D, Demory D, Lopez R, Donati S, et al. Safety and efficacy of a fully closed-loop control ventilation (IntelliVent-ASV®) in sedated ICU patients with acute respiratory failure: a prospective randomized crossover study. Intensive Care Med [Internet]. 2012;38:781–7. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-012-2548-6.
- 36. Arnal J-M, Garnero A, Novotni D, Corno G, Donati S-Y, Demory D, et al. Closed loop ventilation mode in Intensive Care Unit: a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing the numbers of manual ventilator setting changes. Minerva Anestesiol [Internet]. 2018;84:58–67. Available from: pmid:28679200
- 37. Bialais E, Wittebole X, Vignaux L, Roeseler J, Wysocki M, Meyer J, et al. Closed-loop ventilation mode (IntelliVent®-ASV) in intensive care unit: a randomized trial. Minerva Anestesiol [Internet]. 2016;82:657–68. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26957117.
- 38. Chelly J, Mazerand S, Jochmans S, Weyer C-M, Pourcine F, Ellrodt O, et al. Automated vs. conventional ventilation in the ICU: a randomized controlled crossover trial comparing blood oxygen saturation during daily nursing procedures (I-NURSING). Crit Care [Internet]. 2020;24:453. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03155-3.
- 39. Clavieras N, Wysocki M, Coisel Y, Galia F, Conseil M, Chanques G, et al. Prospective Randomized Crossover Study of a New Closed-loop Control System versus Pressure Support during Weaning from Mechanical Ventilation. Anesthesiology [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2022 Aug 16];119:631–41. Available from: https://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article-pdf/119/3/631/262967/20130900_0-00023.pdf. pmid:23619172
- 40. De Bie AJR, Neto AS, van Meenen DM, Bouwman AR, Roos AN, Lameijer JR, et al. Fully automated postoperative ventilation in cardiac surgery patients: a randomised clinical trial. Br J Anaesth [Internet]. 2020;125:739–49. Available from: pmid:32739044
- 41. Denault M-H, Ruel C, Simon M, Bouchard P-A, Simard S, Lellouche F. Evaluation of hyperoxia-induced hypercapnia in obese patients after cardiac surgery: a randomized crossover comparison of conservative and liberal oxygen administration. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d’anesthésie [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2022 Aug 16];67:194–202. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12630-019-01500-x.
- 42. Eremenko А.А., Komnov R.D., Titov P.А., Gerasimenko S.А., Chakal D.А. Comparing the Intellivent-ASV® Mode with Conventional Ventilation Modes during Weaning after Uncomplicated Cardiac Surgery. Messenger of Anesthesiology and Resuscitation. 2021;18(3):36–45. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21292/2078-5658-2021-18-3-36-45.
- 43. Hansen EF, Hove JD, Bech CS, Jensen J-US, Kallemose T, Vestbo J. Automated oxygen control with O2matic during admission with exacerbation of COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis [Internet]. 2018;13:3997–4003. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S183762.
- 44. Harper J, Kearns N, Bird G, Braithwaite I, Eathorne A, Shortt N, et al. Automatic versus manual oxygen titration using a novel nasal high-flow device in medical inpatients with an acute illness: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open Respir Res [Internet]. 2021;8. Available from: pmid:34362762
- 45. Johannigman JA, Branson R, Lecroy D, Beck G. Autonomous Control of Inspired Oxygen Concentration During Mechanical Ventilation of the Critically Injured Trauma Patient. J Trauma Acute Care Surg [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2022 Aug 16];66:386. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstract/2009/02000/Autonomous_Control_of_Inspired_Oxygen.13.aspx. pmid:19204511
- 46. L’Her E, Dias P, Gouillou M, Riou A, Souquiere L, Paleiron N, et al. Automatic versus manual oxygen administration in the emergency department. Eur Respir J [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2022 Aug 16];50. Available from: https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/50/1/1602552.abstract. pmid:28729473
- 47. L’Her E, Jaber S, Verzilli D, Jacob C, Huiban B, Futier E, et al. Automated closed-loop versus standard manual oxygen administration after major abdominal or thoracic surgery: an international multicentre randomised controlled study. Eur Respir J [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Aug 16];57. Available from: https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/57/1/2000182.abstract. pmid:32855218
- 48. Lellouche F, Bouchard P-A, Roberge M, Simard S, L’Her E, Maltais F, et al. Automated oxygen titration and weaning with FreeO2 in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD: a pilot randomized trial. COPD [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2022 Aug 16];11:1983–90. Available from: https://www.dovepress.com/getfile.php?fileID=32049.
- 49. Roca O, Caritg O, Santafé M, Ramos FJ, Pacheco A, García-de-Acilu M, et al. Closed-loop oxygen control improves oxygen therapy in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure patients under high flow nasal oxygen: a randomized cross-over study (the HILOOP study). Crit Care [Internet]. 2022;26:108. Available from: pmid:35422002
- 50. Huynh Ky MT, Bouchard P-A, Morin J, L’Her E, Sarrazin J-F, Lellouche F. Closed-Loop Adjustment of Oxygen Flowrate with FreeO2 in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: Comparison of Automated Titration with FreeO2 (Set at Two SpO2 Target) and of Manual Titration. A Randomized Controlled Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195:A3766.
- 51. Kobayashi T, Onodera Y, Suzuki H, Nakane M, Kawamae K. Manual ASV vs INTELLiVENT-ASV for the patients after cardiac surgery—are automated ventilators better for the patients? Intensive Care Medicine Experimental. ESICM LIVES 2017. 2017;5(Suppl 2):0749. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40635-017-0151-4.
- 52. Lellouche F, Bouchard P-A, Simard S, L’Her E, Wysocki M. Evaluation of fully automated ventilation: a randomized controlled study in post-cardiac surgery patients. Intensive Care Med [Internet]. 2013;39:463–71. Available from: pmid:23338569
- 53. Buiteman-Kruizinga LA, Tsonas AM, Botta M, Guseva AA, Serpa NA, Schultz M, et al. The Effect of INTELLiVENT–ASV on Oxygenation, FiO2 and PEEP in Critically Ill Invasively Ventilated Patients. Intensive Care Medicine Experimental. ESICM LIVES 2022: part 1. 2022;10(2):000489. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40635-022-00468-1.
- 54.
42nd International Symposium on Intensive Care & Emergency Medicine. Crit Care [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Aug 21];27:1–156. Available from: https://ccforum.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13054-023-04377-x.
- 55. Guyatt G, Zhao Y, Mayer M, Briel M, Mustafa R, Izcovich A, et al. GRADE guidance 36: updates to GRADE’s approach to addressing inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;158: 70–83. pmid:36898507
- 56. Sutherland T, Musafiri S, Twagirumugabe T, Talmor D, Riviello ED. Oxygen as an Essential Medicine: Under- and Over-Treatment of Hypoxemia in Low- and High-Income Nations. Critical care medicine. 2016. pp. e1015–6. pmid:27635514
- 57. Meara JG, Leather AJM, Hagander L, Alkire BC, Alonso N, Ameh EA, et al. Global Surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2016;25: 75–78. pmid:26597405
- 58. Kaye AD, Okeagu CN, Pham AD, Silva RA, Hurley JJ, Arron BL, et al. Economic impact of COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare facilities and systems: International perspectives. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2021;35: 293–306. pmid:34511220
- 59. Usher AD. Medical oxygen crisis: a belated COVID-19 response. Lancet. 2021;397: 868–869. pmid:33676621
- 60.
Website. Available: Every Breath Counts Coalition. One year after the launch of the access to COVID19 tools accelerator (ACT-A) oxygen emergency taskforce, what has been achieved?. Available at: https://stoppneumonia.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/ACTAOxygenTaskforceAnniversaryStatement23February2022.pdf. Accessed March 2, 2022.