Bunn F, Alderson P, Hawkins V
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Institute of Child Health, 30 Guilford Street, London, UK, WC1N 1EH.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000(2):CD001319. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001319.
Colloids are widely used in the replacement of fluid volume, however doubts remain as to their benefits. Different colloids vary in their molecular weight and therefore in the length of time they remain in the circulatory system. Because of this and their other characteristics, they may differ in their safety and efficacy.
To compare the effects of different colloid solutions in patients thought to need volume replacement.
The Cochrane Injuries Group specialised register, The Cochrane Controlled trials register (all years), MEDLINE (1994-98), EMBASE (1974-98) were searched. Bibliographies of trials retrieved were searched and drug companies manufacturing colloids were contacted for information.
Randomised and quasi randomised trials comparing colloid solutions in critically ill and surgical patients thought to need volume replacement. The main outcomes measured were death, amount of whole blood transfused and incidence of adverse reactions.
Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the trials.
46 trials met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 2884 participants. Many of the trials were small. In the majority of trials quality was poor or uncertain. Deaths were obtained from 27 trials. Twenty three trials recorded the amount of blood transfused, however quantitative analysis was not possible due to skewness and variable reporting. Thirteen trials recorded adverse reactions, but none occurred. For albumin or PPF versus hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 20 trials reported mortality. The pooled relative risk (RR) was 1.17 (95% CI 0.91, 1.50). For albumin or PPF versus gelatin 3 trials reported mortality. The RR was 0.99 (0.69, 1.42). For gelatin vs HES 3 trials reported mortality, RR was 0.97 (0.65, 1.44). RR was not estimable in the albumin vs dextran, gelatin vs dextran, and HES vs dextran groups.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: From this review, there is no evidence that one colloid solution is more effective or safe than any other, although the confidence intervals are wide and do not exclude clinically significant differences between colloids. Larger trials of fluid therapy are needed if clinically significant differences in mortality are to be detected or excluded.
胶体溶液被广泛用于补充血容量,但其益处仍存在疑问。不同的胶体溶液分子量不同,因此它们在循环系统中存留的时间长短也不同。鉴于此以及它们的其他特性,其安全性和有效性可能存在差异。
比较不同胶体溶液对被认为需要补充血容量的患者的治疗效果。
检索了Cochrane损伤组专业登记库、Cochrane对照试验登记库(历年)、MEDLINE(1994 - 1998年)、EMBASE(1974 - 1998年)。对检索到的试验的参考文献进行了检索,并联系了生产胶体溶液的制药公司以获取信息。
比较胶体溶液对被认为需要补充血容量的危重症患者和外科手术患者疗效的随机及半随机试验。主要测量的结局指标为死亡、全血输注量及不良反应发生率。
两位作者独立提取数据并评估试验质量。
46项试验符合纳入标准,共有2884名参与者。许多试验规模较小。大多数试验质量较差或质量不确定。27项试验提供了死亡数据。23项试验记录了输血情况,但由于数据偏态分布和报告方式各异,无法进行定量分析。13项试验记录了不良反应,但均未发生。对于白蛋白或PPF与羟乙基淀粉(HES)的比较,20项试验报告了死亡率。合并相对危险度(RR)为1.17(95%可信区间0.91,1.50)。对于白蛋白或PPF与明胶的比较,3项试验报告了死亡率。RR为0.99(0.69,1.42)。对于明胶与HES的比较,3项试验报告了死亡率,RR为0.97(0.65,1.44)。白蛋白与右旋糖酐、明胶与右旋糖酐以及HES与右旋糖酐组的RR无法估计。
从本综述来看,没有证据表明一种胶体溶液比其他胶体溶液更有效或更安全,尽管可信区间较宽,且未排除胶体溶液之间存在临床显著差异的可能性。若要检测或排除死亡率方面的临床显著差异,则需要开展更大规模的液体治疗试验。