Effects of ventilatory bundles on patient outcomes among ICU patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Ventilator bundles are suggested to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), but significant variations in the effects of the bundle on patient outcomes have been reported. Objectives: To synthesize the evidence and evaluate the effects of the ventilator bundle on patient outcomes among critically ill adult patients. Methods: A broad search was performed in seven databases for relevant articles published from January 2002 to November 2022. Randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies investigating the effects of implementing ventilator bundles in adult intensive care units (ICUs) were included. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. All data for meta-analysis were pooled using the random-effects model. Results: After screening, 19 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Evidence of low-to-moderate certainty showed that the ventilator bundle reduced the rate of VAP (risk ratio [RR] = 0.64; P = 0.003), length of ICU stay (mean difference [MD] = -2.57; P = 0.03), mechanical ventilation days (MD = -3.38; P < 0.001), and ICU mortality (RR = 0.76; P = 0.02). Ventilator bundle was associated with improved outcomes, except mortality. Conclusions: The ventilator bundle, especially the IHI ventilator bundle, was effective in decreasing the incidence of VAP and improving most of the VAP-related outcomes. However, given the low-to-moderate certainty of evidence and high heterogeneity, these results should be interpreted with caution. A future study that adopts hybrid implementation trials with high methodological quality is needed to confirm the effects of the ventilator bundle on patient outcomes.

Automated summary

The ventilator bundle has been found to effectively reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia and improve related outcomes. However, caution should be exercised in interpreting these findings due to the low-to-moderate certainty of evidence and high heterogeneity.