Departments of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Lund University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2012 Oct;24(4):407-12. doi: 10.1097/01.ana.0000419730.29492.8b.
Despite the fact that it has been used since the 1960s in diseases associated with brain edema and has been investigated in >150 publications on head injury, very little has been published on the outcome of osmotherapy. We can only speculate whether osmotherapy improves outcome, has no effect on outcome, or leads to worse outcome. Here we describe the action and potentially beneficial and adverse effects of the 2 most commonly used osmotic solutions, mannitol and hypertonic saline, and present some critical aspects of their use. There is a well-documented transient intracranial pressure (ICP)-reducing effect of osmotherapy, but an adverse rebound increase in ICP after its withdrawal has been discussed extensively in the literature and is an expected pathophysiological phenomenon. From side effects related to renal and pulmonary failure, electrolyte disturbances, and a rebound increase in ICP, osmotherapy can be negative for outcome, which may explain why we lack scientific support for its use. These drawbacks, and the fact that the most recent Cochrane meta-analyses of osmotherapy in brain edema and stroke could not find any beneficial effects on outcome, make routine use of osmotherapy in brain edema doubtful. Nevertheless, the use of osmotherapy as a temporary measure may be justified to acutely prevent brain stem compression until other measures, such as evacuation of space-occupying lesions or decompressive craniotomy, can be performed. This article is the Con part in a Pro-Con debate in the present journal on the general routine use of osmotherapy in brain edema.
尽管甘露醇自 20 世纪 60 年代以来就被用于脑水肿相关疾病,并且在 150 多篇关于颅脑损伤的出版物中进行了研究,但关于渗透疗法的结果却很少有报道。我们只能推测渗透疗法是否能改善预后,是否对预后没有影响,或者导致预后更差。在这里,我们描述了两种最常用的渗透液,甘露醇和高渗盐水的作用和潜在的有益及不良反应,并介绍了它们使用的一些关键方面。渗透疗法确实有明确的降低颅内压(ICP)的作用,但在撤药后 ICP 反跳性升高的问题在文献中已经广泛讨论过,这是一种预期的病理生理现象。由于与肾功能衰竭、肺功能衰竭、电解质紊乱和 ICP 反跳性升高有关的副作用,渗透疗法可能对预后不利,这可能解释了为什么我们缺乏其使用的科学依据。这些缺点,以及最近关于甘露醇在脑水肿和中风中的荟萃分析也未能发现对预后有任何有益影响,使得常规使用甘露醇治疗脑水肿值得怀疑。然而,作为一种临时措施,使用渗透疗法来急性预防脑干压迫,直到可以采取其他措施,如占位病变清除或减压性颅骨切开术,可能是合理的。这篇文章是本期刊中关于脑水肿中常规使用渗透疗法的一般利弊辩论中的 Con 部分。