Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medcine, Shanghai, China.
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2012 Oct;26(5):829-34. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2011.12.016. Epub 2012 Feb 14.
The goal of this meta-analysis was to determine the benefits and risks of rigorous glycemic control during cardiac surgery.
The authors conducted searches of MEDLINE (January 1966 through February 2011), Embase (January 1985 through February 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library issue 2, 2011), and the reference lists of the included trials. The authors searched for studies in any language in which adult cardiac surgical patients were assigned randomly to intensive insulin therapy (IIT) versus conventional insulin therapy (CIT). Two authors independently extracted the information and assessed the methodologic quality of the trials. The summary effects were estimated with the risk ratio or risk difference using random- and fixed-effects models.
Randomized controlled trials.
A meta-analysis of 5 randomized control trials.
Five randomized controlled trials that included 706 patients were identified. Overall, the risk difference of 30-day/in-hospital mortality with IIT compared with CIT was 0.01 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.01 to 0.03; p = 0.25) and the risk difference of hypoglycemic events with IIT was -0.02 (95% CI = 0.05-0.01; p = 0.26) and thus not different between treatments. The infection rate was lower in patients randomized to the IIT arm (risk ratio = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.29-0.84; p = 0.009). Among the 4 trials that reported cardiovascular events, the pooled risk ratio with IIT was 0.85 (95% CI = 0.45-1.59; p = 0.61).
The intraoperative use of IIT may decrease the infection rate in cardiac surgical patients compared with the CIT group. However, IIT may not decrease mortality, the incidence of hypoglycemia, or the incidence of cardiovascular events. Additional well-designed randomized trials are required to clarify the potential benefit of IIT on 30-day/in-hospital mortality and the incidence of perioperative hypoglycemia.
本荟萃分析旨在确定心脏手术期间严格血糖控制的益处和风险。
作者检索了 MEDLINE(1966 年 1 月至 2011 年 2 月)、Embase(1985 年 1 月至 2011 年 2 月)、Cochrane 中央对照试验注册库(Cochrane 图书馆 2011 年第 2 期)和纳入试验的参考文献列表。作者以任何语言搜索了接受随机分组的成年心脏外科患者接受强化胰岛素治疗(IIT)与常规胰岛素治疗(CIT)的研究。两位作者独立提取信息并评估试验的方法学质量。使用随机效应和固定效应模型,用风险比或风险差来估计汇总效果。
随机对照试验。
荟萃分析 5 项随机对照试验。
确定了 5 项随机对照试验,共纳入 706 例患者。总体而言,IIT 与 CIT 相比,30 天/住院死亡率的风险差异为 0.01(95%置信区间[CI]为-0.01 至 0.03;p = 0.25),而 IIT 低血糖事件的风险差异为-0.02(95%CI 为 0.05-0.01;p = 0.26),两种治疗方法无差异。随机分配至 IIT 组的患者感染率较低(风险比=0.50;95%CI=0.29-0.84;p=0.009)。在报告心血管事件的 4 项试验中,IIT 的汇总风险比为 0.85(95%CI=0.45-1.59;p=0.61)。
与 CIT 组相比,心脏外科手术患者术中使用 IIT 可能降低感染率。然而,IIT 可能不会降低死亡率、低血糖发生率或心血管事件发生率。需要进一步设计良好的随机试验来明确 IIT 对 30 天/住院死亡率和围手术期低血糖发生率的潜在益处。