Bagshaw Sean M, Delaney Anthony, Haase Michael, Ghali William A, Bellomo Rinaldo
Department of Intensive Care, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Crit Care Resusc. 2007 Mar;9(1):60-8.
Loop diuretics are commonly used in critically ill patients with acute renal failure (ARF), but their effect on clinical outcome remains uncertain. We systematically reviewed the literature comparing loop diuretics with control in the management of ARF.
Studies were identified by search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register, and review of proceedings from selected scientific meetings and clinical trial registries, and bibliographies of retrieved citations. We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing loop diuretics with control in patients with ARF. Data were extracted in duplicate by two independent reviewers on study characteristics, quality and outcomes. Primary outcomes were mortality, need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) and renal recovery. Secondary outcomes were change to urine output, serum potassium level and acid-base status, duration of ARF or RRT, length of hospital stay and toxicity.
Of 62 studies reviewed, five RCTs, enrolling 555 patients, were eligible and analysed. These trials enrolled a mix of patients, but only two included critically ill patients. Overall trial quality was low. There was no statistical difference in mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.28; 95% CI, 0.89-1.84; P=0.18) or renal recovery (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.59-1.31; P=0.5) with use of loop diuretics compared with control. However, loop diuretics were associated with a shorter duration of RRT (weighted mean difference, ?1.4 days; 95% CI, ?0.2 to ?2.3 days; P=0.02), shorter time to spontaneous decline in serum creatinine level (weighted mean difference, ?2.1 days; 95% CI, ?0.4 to ?3.7 days; P=0.01) and a greater increase in urine output from baseline (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-4.9; P=0.004). Insufficient data were available on acid-base status, hospital length of stay or health costs. Four studies reported toxicity, most commonly transient tinnitus and deafness.
Loop diuretics were not associated with improved mortality or rate of independence from RRT, but were associated with shorter duration of RRT and increased urine output. However, these findings have limited relevance to critically ill patients. The relative paucity of high-quality data assessing the value of loop diuretics in ARF for the critically ill suggests a need for a suitably powered randomised trial.
袢利尿剂常用于急性肾衰竭(ARF)的重症患者,但它们对临床结局的影响仍不确定。我们系统回顾了比较袢利尿剂与对照治疗ARF的文献。
通过检索MEDLINE、EMBASE和Cochrane对照临床试验注册库,查阅选定科学会议的论文集和临床试验注册库,以及检索文献的参考文献来识别研究。我们选择了比较袢利尿剂与ARF患者对照的随机对照试验(RCT)。由两名独立 reviewers 对研究特征、质量和结局进行重复数据提取。主要结局为死亡率、肾脏替代治疗(RRT)需求和肾功能恢复。次要结局为尿量变化、血清钾水平和酸碱状态、ARF或RRT持续时间、住院时间和毒性。
在62项回顾的研究中,有5项RCT符合纳入标准并进行分析,共纳入555例患者。这些试验纳入了多种患者,但只有两项纳入了重症患者。总体试验质量较低。与对照相比,使用袢利尿剂时死亡率(优势比[OR],1.28;95%可信区间[CI],0.89 - 1.84;P = 0.18)或肾功能恢复(OR,0.88;95% CI,0.59 - 1.31;P = 0.5)无统计学差异。然而,袢利尿剂与较短的RRT持续时间(加权平均差,−1.4天;95% CI,−0.2至−2.3天;P = 0.02)、血清肌酐水平自发下降的时间较短(加权平均差,−2.1天;95% CI,−0.4至−3.7天;P = 0.01)以及基线尿量增加幅度更大(OR,2.6;95% CI,1.4 - 4.9;P = 0.004)相关。关于酸碱状态、住院时间或医疗费用的数据不足。四项研究报告了毒性,最常见的是短暂性耳鸣和耳聋。
袢利尿剂与死亡率改善或RRT独立性增加无关,但与较短的RRT持续时间和尿量增加有关。然而,这些发现与重症患者的相关性有限。评估袢利尿剂对重症ARF患者价值的高质量数据相对较少,这表明需要进行一项有足够样本量的随机试验。