Suppr超能文献

持续低剂量输注双氯芬酸钠以控制神经外科重症监护中的发热

Continuous low dose diclofenac sodium infusion to control fever in neurosurgical critical care.

作者信息

Cormio Manuela, Citerio Giuseppe

机构信息

Neurorianimazione, Dipartimento di Medicina Perioperatoria e Terapie Intensive, Ospedale San Gerardo, Via Pergolesi 33, 20052, Monza, MI, Italy.

出版信息

Neurocrit Care. 2007;6(2):82-9. doi: 10.1007/s12028-007-0002-3.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Aim of this randomized prospective clinical trial is to compare two methods of antipyretics and evaluate their efficacy in controlling fever during the acute phase of brain damage.

METHODS

Twenty-two febrile comatose patients: 12 severe traumatic brain injury and 10 subarachnoid hemorrhage divided in 2 groups: Diclofenac low-dose infusion (10 patients) and extemporaneous boluses of NSAIDs (CTRL, 12 patients). The primary outcome measure was length of time with temperature>38 degrees C. Secondary outcome measures were: 1) to assess the effects of each antipyretic strategy on intracranial pressure (ICP), cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate; 2) to monitor adverse effects of each antipyretic strategy. The baseline characteristics in the two treatment groups were similar.

RESULTS

Primary findings: percentage of time per patient with temperature>38 degrees C was significantly lower (P<0.0001) in the DCF group, 4% (0-22%), vs. 34% (8-56%) in CTRL group. In addition, mean T degrees , max T degrees were lower in DCF than in CTRL (P<0.05). Secondary findings: CPP and MAP were significantly higher in DCF group (P<0.05) while ICP was not different (NS). However, if ICP pre randomization was <25 mmHg, CTRL suffered a worst ICP (24+/-11 vs. 16+/-7 P=0.01), MAP (89+/-10 vs. 104+/-10 P=0.01) and CPP (75+/-10 vs. 94+/-17 P=0.01) compared to DCF. No differences between the two treatment were recorded when ICP>or=25 mmHg before randomization. There was no gastrointestinal or intracranial bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Low dose DCF infusion is a potential useful strategy for a successful control temperature better than intermittent NSAIDs dosing, minimizing potentially brain-damaging effects of fever.

摘要

引言

本随机前瞻性临床试验的目的是比较两种退热方法,并评估它们在脑损伤急性期控制发热的疗效。

方法

22名发热昏迷患者,其中12名重度创伤性脑损伤患者和10名蛛网膜下腔出血患者被分为两组:双氯芬酸低剂量输注组(10名患者)和非甾体抗炎药临时推注组(对照组,12名患者)。主要结局指标是体温>38摄氏度的持续时间。次要结局指标为:1)评估每种退热策略对颅内压(ICP)、脑灌注压(CPP)、平均动脉压(MAP)和心率的影响;2)监测每种退热策略的不良反应。两个治疗组的基线特征相似。

结果

主要发现:双氯芬酸组患者体温>38摄氏度的时间百分比显著更低(P<0.0001),为4%(0 - 22%),而对照组为34%(8 - 56%)。此外,双氯芬酸组的平均体温、最高体温均低于对照组(P<0.05)。次要发现:双氯芬酸组的CPP和MAP显著更高(P<0.05),而ICP无差异(无显著性)。然而,如果随机分组前ICP<25 mmHg,与双氯芬酸组相比,对照组的ICP更差(24±11 vs. 16±7,P = 0.01),MAP(89±10 vs. 104±10,P = 0.01)和CPP(75±10 vs. 94±17,P = 0.01)。随机分组前ICP≥25 mmHg时,两个治疗组之间未记录到差异。未发生胃肠道或颅内出血。

结论

低剂量双氯芬酸输注是一种潜在有用的策略,与间歇性非甾体抗炎药给药相比,能更成功地控制体温,将发热对大脑的潜在损害降至最低。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验