Neuromuscular blockade in patients with ARDS: a rapid practice guideline
Open accessAbstract
The aim of this Intensive Care Medicine Rapid Practice Guideline (ICM-RPG) is to formulate an evidence-based guidance for the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The panel comprised 20 international clinical experts from 12 countries, and 2 patient representatives. We adhered to the methodology for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines and followed a strict conflict of interest policy. We convened panelists through teleconferences and web-based discussions. Guideline experts from the guidelines in intensive care, development, and evaluation Group provided methodological support. Two content experts provided input and shared their expertise with the panel but did not participate in drafting the final recommendations. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations and suggestions. We used the evidence to decision framework to generate recommendations. The panel provided input on guideline implementation and monitoring, and suggested future research priorities. The overall certainty in the evidence was low. The ICM-RPG panel issued one recommendation and two suggestions regarding the use of NMBAs in adults with ARDS. Current evidence does not support the early routine use of an NMBA infusion in adults with ARDS of any severity. It favours avoiding a continuous infusion of NMBA for patients who are ventilated using a lighter sedation strategy. However, for patients who require deep sedation to facilitate lung protective ventilation or prone positioning, and require neuromuscular blockade, an infusion of an NMBA for 48 h is a reasonable option.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Overall, continuous NMBA infusion reduced the risk of barotrauma (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.35-0.85), but the effect on ventilator-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU-acquired weakness was unclear.
“Overall, continuous NMBA infusion reduced the risk of barotrauma (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.35–0.85), but the effect on ventilator-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU-acquired weakness was unclear [472, 473].”
From Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021 (2021) · cites this paper as [472]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 123
- Authors
- Alhazzani, W., Belley-Cote, E., Møller, M. H., Angus, D. C., Papazian, L., Arabi, Y. M., Citerio, G., Connolly, B., Denehy, L., Fox-Robichaud, A., Hough, C. L., Laake, J. H., Machado, F. R., Ostermann, M., Piraino, T., Sharif, S., Szczeklik, W., Young, P. J., Gouskos, A., Kiedrowski, K., & Burns, K. E. A.
- Affiliations
- McMaster University (CA)
- Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Aix-Marseille Université (FR)
- King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (SA)
- Azienda Ospedaliera San Gerardo (IT)
- Queen's University Belfast (GB)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Oregon Health & Science University (US)
- Oslo University Hospital (NO)
- Universidade Federal de São Paulo (BR)
- Guy's Hospital (GB)
- St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
- Jagiellonian University (PL)
- Medical Research Institute of New Zealand (NZ)
- Corresponding author
- Alhazzani, Waleed
- ORCID
- Venue
- Intensive Care Medicine
- Published
- 2020-10-26
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1977-1986
- ISSN
- 0342-4642 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-1238
- PMC
- PMC7585991
- OpenAlex
- W3094508294
- Cited by
- 123
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 12.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Intensive Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Jagiellonian University Repository (Jagiellonian University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Health Research Council of New Zealand
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Anesthesia and Sedative Agents
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Intensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
- Keywords
- neuromuscular blockade, neuromuscular blocking agents, acute respiratory distress syndrome, mechanical ventilation, sedation, lung-protective ventilation, prone positioning, evidence-based recommendations
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Critical Care, Humans, Neuromuscular Blocking Agents, Respiration, Artificial, Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Neuromuscular Blockade
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review