Suppr超能文献

用于危重症患者液体复苏的胶体液与晶体液对比

Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients.

作者信息

Roberts I, Alderson P, Bunn F, Chinnock P, Ker K, Schierhout G

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004 Oct 18(4):CD000567. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000567.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects on mortality of colloids compared to crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Injuries Group specialised register, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and BIDS Index to Scientific and Technical Proceedings, and checked reference lists of trials and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised and quasi-randomised trials of colloids compared to crystalloids, in patients requiring volume replacement. Cross-over trials and trials in pregnant women and neonates were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and rated quality of allocation concealment. Trials with a 'double-intervention', such as those comparing colloid in hypertonic crystalloid to isotonic crystalloid, were analysed separately. The analysis was stratified according to colloid type and quality of allocation concealment.

MAIN RESULTS

Colloids compared to crystalloidsAlbumin or plasma protein fraction. Nineteen trials reported data on mortality, including a total of 7576 patients. The pooled relative risk (RR) from these trials was 1.02 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.93 to 1.11). When the trial with poor quality allocation concealment was excluded, pooled RR was 1.01 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.10). Hydroxyethyl starch. Ten trials compared hydroxyethyl starch with crystalloids, including a total of 374 randomised participants. The pooled RR was 1.16 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.96). Modified gelatin. Seven trials compared modified gelatin with crystalloid, including a total of 346 randomised participants. The pooled RR was 0.54 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.85). Dextran. Nine trials compared dextran with a crystalloid, including a total of 834 randomised participants. The pooled relative risk was RR 1.24 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.65). Colloids in hypertonic crystalloid compared to isotonic crystalloidEight trials compared dextran in hypertonic crystalloid with isotonic crystalloid, including 1283 randomised participants. Pooled RR was 0.88 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.05).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials that resuscitation with colloids reduces the risk of death, compared to resuscitation with crystalloids, in patients with trauma, burns or 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 patients can be justified outside the context of randomised controlled trials.

摘要

背景

胶体溶液广泛用于危重症患者的液体复苏。胶体有多种选择,且关于胶体与晶体液相比的相对有效性的争论仍在继续。

目的

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。

检索策略

我们检索了伤害组专业注册库、Cochrane对照试验注册库、MEDLINE、EMBASE以及科学技术会议录的BIDS索引,并检查了试验和综述文章的参考文献列表。

入选标准

所有将胶体与晶体液进行比较的随机和半随机试验,对象为需要容量替代的患者。交叉试验以及孕妇和新生儿的试验被排除。

数据收集与分析

两名评价员独立提取数据并对分配隐藏的质量进行评分。对有“双重干预”的试验,如比较高渗晶体液中的胶体与等渗晶体液的试验,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。

主要结果

胶体与晶体液相比白蛋白或血浆蛋白组分。19项试验报告了死亡率数据,共纳入7576例患者。这些试验的合并相对风险(RR)为1.02(95%置信区间[95%CI]0.93至1.11)。排除分配隐藏质量差的试验后,合并RR为1.01(95%CI0.92至1.10)。羟乙基淀粉。10项试验将羟乙基淀粉与晶体液进行比较,共纳入374例随机参与者。合并RR为1.16(95%CI0.68至1.96)。改良明胶。7项试验将改良明胶与晶体液进行比较,共纳入346例随机参与者。合并RR为0.54(95%CI0.16至1.85)。右旋糖酐。9项试验将右旋糖酐与晶体液进行比较,共纳入834例随机参与者。合并相对风险为RR1.24(95%CI0.94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,包括1283例随机参与者。合并RR为0.88(95%CI0.74至1.05)。

评价员结论

随机对照试验没有证据表明,与晶体液复苏相比,胶体复苏能降低创伤、烧伤或手术后患者的死亡风险。由于胶体不能提高生存率,且比晶体液更昂贵,因此很难理解在随机对照试验之外继续在这些患者中使用胶体如何能得到合理的解释。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验