Alderson P, Schierhout G, Roberts I, Bunn F
Australian Cochrane Centre, Monash Institue of Public Health, Monash Medical Centre, Clayton Vic 3168, Australia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000(2):CD000567. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000567.
Colloid solutions are widely used in fluid resuscitation of critically ill patients. There are several choices of colloid and there is ongoing debate about the relative effectiveness of colloids compared to crystalloid fluids.
To assess the effects on mortality of colloids compared to crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients.
We searched the Injuries Group specialised register, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and BIDS Index to Scientific and Technical Proceedings and checked the reference lists of trials and review articles.
All randomised and quasi-random trials of colloids compared to crystalloids, in patients requiring volume replacement. Cross-over trials and trials in pregnant women and neonates were excluded.
Two reviewers independently extracted data and rated quality of allocation concealment. Trials with a 'double-intervention' such as those, which compared colloid in hypertonic crystalloid to isotonic crystalloid, were analysed separately. The analysis was stratified according to colloid type and quality of allocation concealment.
Colloids compared to crystalloids: Albumin or plasma protein fraction: Eighteen trials reported data on mortality, including a total of 641 patients. The pooled relative risk from these trials was 1.52 (95% confidence interval 1.08 to 2.13). The risk of death in the albumin treated group was 6% higher than in the crystalloid treated group (1% to 11%). When the trial with poor quality allocation concealment was excluded the pooled relative risk was 1.34 (0.95 to 1.89). Hydroxyethylstarch: Seven trials compared hydroxyethylstarch with crystalloids including a total of 197 randomised participants. The pooled relative risk was 1.16 (0.68 to 1.96). Modified gelatin: Four trials compared modified gelatin with crystalloid including a total of 95 randomised participants. The pooled relative risk was 0.50 (0. 08 to 3.03). Dextran: Eight trials compared dextran with a crystalloid including a total of 668 randomised participants. The pooled relative risk was 1.24 (0.94 to 1.65). Colloids in hypertonic crystalloid compared to isotonic crystalloid: Eight trials compared dextran in hypertonic crystalloid with isotonic crystalloid, including 1283 randomised participants. The pooled relative risk was 0.88 (0.74 to 1.05).
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials that resuscitation with colloids reduces the risk of death compared to crystalloids in patients with trauma, burns and following surgery. As colloids are not associated with an improvement in survival, and as they are more expensive than crystalloids, it is hard to see how their continued use in these patient types can be justified outside the context of randomised controlled trials.
胶体溶液广泛应用于危重症患者的液体复苏。胶体有多种选择,关于胶体与晶体液相比的相对有效性一直存在争议。
评估在危重症患者液体复苏中,胶体与晶体液相比对死亡率的影响。
我们检索了损伤组专业注册库、Cochrane对照试验注册库、MEDLINE、EMBASE以及BIDS科学技术会议录索引,并查阅了试验和综述文章的参考文献列表。
所有将胶体与晶体液进行比较的随机和半随机试验,对象为需要容量补充的患者。交叉试验以及孕妇和新生儿的试验被排除。
两名评价员独立提取数据并对分配隐藏质量进行评分。对有“双重干预”的试验,如将高渗晶体液中的胶体与等渗晶体液进行比较的试验,进行单独分析。分析根据胶体类型和分配隐藏质量进行分层。
胶体与晶体液相比:白蛋白或血浆蛋白组分:18项试验报告了死亡率数据,共641例患者。这些试验汇总的相对风险为1.52(95%置信区间1.08至2.13)。白蛋白治疗组的死亡风险比晶体液治疗组高6%(1%至11%)。排除分配隐藏质量差的试验后,汇总的相对风险为1.34(0.95至1.89)。羟乙基淀粉:7项试验将羟乙基淀粉与晶体液进行比较,共197名随机参与者。汇总的相对风险为1.16(0.68至1.96)。改良明胶:4项试验将改良明胶与晶体液进行比较,共95名随机参与者。汇总的相对风险为0.50(0.08至3.03)。右旋糖酐:8项试验将右旋糖酐与晶体液进行比较,共668名随机参与者。汇总的相对风险为1.24(0.94至1.65)。高渗晶体液中的胶体与等渗晶体液相比:8项试验将高渗晶体液中的右旋糖酐与等渗晶体液进行比较,共1283名随机参与者。汇总的相对风险为0.88(0.74至1.05)。
随机对照试验没有证据表明,对于创伤、烧伤患者以及术后患者,与晶体液复苏相比,胶体复苏可降低死亡风险。由于胶体与生存率改善无关,且比晶体液更昂贵,因此很难理解在随机对照试验背景之外,继续在这些患者类型中使用胶体如何能得到合理证明。