Askie L M, Henderson-Smart D J
NSW Centre for Perinatal Health Services Research, Building DO2, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia., 2006.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000(2):CD001077. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001077.
This section is under preparation and will be included in the next issue.
In preterm or low birth weight infants, does targeting ambient oxygen concentration to achieve a lower versus higher blood oxygen range, or administering restricted versus liberal supplemental oxygen, influence mortality, retinopathy of prematurity, lung function, growth or development?
The standard search strategy of the Neonatal Review Group was used. An additional literature search was conducted of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases in order to locate any trials in addition to those provided by the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL/CCTR).
All trials in preterm or low birth weight infants utilising random or quasi-random patient allocation, in which ambient oxygen concentrations were targeted to achieve a lower versus higher blood oxygen range, or restricted versus liberal oxygen was administered, were eligible for inclusion.
The methodological quality of the eligible trials was assessed independently by each author for the degree selection, performance, attrition and detection bias. Data were extracted and reviewed independently by the each author. Data analysis was conducted according to the standards of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group.
The restriction of oxygen significantly reduced the incidence and severity of retinopathy of prematurity without unduly increasing death rates in the meta-analysis of the five trials included in this review. The one trial that specifically addressed the question of lower versus higher PaO2 found no effect on death, but did not report (in sufficient detail to warrant inclusion) the effect of this intervention on eye or other outcomes. The effects of either of these oxygen administration policies on other clinically meaningful outcomes including chronic lung disease and long term growth, neurodevelopment, lung or visual function were not reported in any of the available trials.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis confirm the commonly held view of today's clinicians that a policy of unrestricted, unmonitored oxygen therapy has potential harms, without clear benefits. However, the question of what is the optimal target range for maintaining blood oxygen levels in preterm/LBW infants was not answered by the data available for inclusion in this review.
本节正在编写中,将在下一期发表。
对于早产或低体重婴儿,将环境氧浓度设定为较低而非较高的血氧范围,或给予限制性而非自由补充氧气,是否会影响死亡率、早产儿视网膜病变、肺功能、生长或发育?
采用了新生儿综述组的标准检索策略。除了Cochrane对照试验注册库(CENTRAL/CCTR)提供的试验外,还对MEDLINE、EMBASE和CINAHL数据库进行了额外的文献检索,以查找其他试验。
所有针对早产或低体重婴儿的试验,采用随机或半随机患者分配,其中将环境氧浓度设定为较低而非较高的血氧范围,或给予限制性而非自由氧气,均符合纳入条件。
每位作者独立评估符合条件的试验的方法学质量,包括选择、实施、失访和检测偏倚的程度。每位作者独立提取和审查数据。数据分析按照Cochrane新生儿综述组的标准进行。
在本综述纳入的五项试验的荟萃分析中,氧气限制显著降低了早产儿视网膜病变的发生率和严重程度,且未过度增加死亡率。一项专门探讨较低与较高动脉血氧分压问题的试验未发现对死亡有影响,但未报告(详细程度不足以纳入)该干预对眼睛或其他结局的影响。现有试验均未报告这两种氧气给药策略对其他具有临床意义的结局的影响,包括慢性肺病以及长期生长、神经发育、肺或视觉功能。
该荟萃分析的结果证实了当今临床医生的普遍观点,即无限制、无监测的氧疗政策有潜在危害,却无明显益处。然而,本综述所纳入的数据未能回答在早产/低体重婴儿中维持血氧水平的最佳目标范围是多少这一问题。