ハヤシ　ヨシロウ   HAYASHI Yoshirou   林　淑朗    所属   医学部 医学科（東京女子医科大学病院）    職種   客員教授
論文種別	原著
言語種別	英語
査読の有無	査読あり
表題	Inhaled nitric oxide for acute respiratory distress syndrome in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
掲載誌名	正式名：Journal of intensive care 略　 称：J Intensive Care ISSNコード：20520492/20520492
掲載区分	国外
巻・号・頁	14(1),pp.10
著者・共著者	Yuta Nakamura†, Yuki Kotani*, Takatoshi Koroki, Hideki Tachibana, Shunta Tsutsumi, Toshiyuki Karumai, Yoshiro Hayashi
発行年月	2026/01
概要	BACKGROUND:Although inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is used as a rescue therapy in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), its impact on patient-centered outcomes remains uncertain. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to test the hypothesis that the addition of iNO to standard care improves survival in adult patients with ARDS.METHODS:We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP for RCTs evaluating iNO in adult patients with ARDS through October 28, 2025. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up. Secondary outcomes included acute kidney injury (AKI), receipt of renal replacement therapy (RRT), duration of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospital stay, receipt of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), mean pulmonary artery pressure, partial pressure of arterial oxygen/fraction of inspiratory oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio, elevated methemoglobin concentrations (> 5%), elevated nitrogen dioxide concentrations (> 3 ppm), extubation, and reintubation. We pooled data using a random-effects model, assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and graded certainty with the GRADE approach.RESULTS:We included 11 RCTs comprising 1302 patients. Only one study was of low risk of bias. iNO therapy may result in no difference in mortality at the longest follow-up (relative risk [RR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.23; I2 = 0%; low certainty). iNO may improve PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio slightly (mean difference, 15.03 mmHg; 95% CI, 6.19-23.86; I2 = 0%; low certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on ECMO use (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.10-2.17; I2 = 45%; very low certainty). iNO may increase the need for RRT (RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.17-2.08; I2 = 0%; low certainty). No clear differences were observed in other secondary outcomes. No study reported data on reintubation.CONCLUSIONS:Although iNO may improve oxygenation slightly, it may not confer survival or other patient-centered benefits and may increase the need for RRT. High-quality randomized evidence is needed to guide the optimal patient selection for this therapeutic option.TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42024573383).
DOI	10.1186/s40560-025-00845-4
PMID	41484686