Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
J Crit Care. 2013 Jun;28(3):303-10. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2012.09.009. Epub 2012 Nov 14.
To determine whether fever control with antipyretic therapy effects the mortality of febrile critically ill adults.
Systematic review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and 2 clinical trial registries from inception to April 2012. Randomized clinical trials comparing treatment of fever with no treatment or comparing different thresholds for fever control in adults without acute neurological injury admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) were selected for review. The effect of fever control on all-cause ICU-mortality was determined using a random effects meta-analysis.
Five randomized clinical trials in 399 patients were included. The temperature threshold for treatment in the intervention group was commonly 38.3°C to 38.5°C, whereas it was typically 40.0°C for controls. Four studies used physical measures and 3 used pharmacologic measures for temperature control. There was no significant heterogeneity among the included studies (I(2) = 12.5%, P = .3). Fever control did not significantly effect ICU mortality with a pooled risk ratio of 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.58-1.63, P = .9).
This meta-analysis found no evidence that fever treatment influences mortality in critically ill adults without acute neurological injury. However, studies were underpowered to detect clinically important differences.
确定退热治疗是否影响发热危重症成人的死亡率。
系统检索 MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库、CINAHL、Google Scholar 和 2 个临床试验注册库,检索时间从建库至 2012 年 4 月。选择比较发热患者接受退热治疗与不治疗或比较成人 ICU 中无急性神经损伤患者不同退热阈值的随机临床试验进行评价。采用随机效应荟萃分析确定退热对 ICU 全因死亡率的影响。
纳入 5 项共 399 例患者的随机临床试验。干预组的治疗温度阈值通常为 38.3°C 至 38.5°C,而对照组通常为 40.0°C。4 项研究采用物理措施,3 项研究采用药物措施来控制体温。纳入的研究之间无显著异质性(I²=12.5%,P=.3)。退热治疗并未显著影响 ICU 死亡率,汇总风险比为 0.98(95%置信区间 0.58-1.63,P=.9)。
该荟萃分析未发现发热治疗对无急性神经损伤的危重症成人死亡率有影响的证据。然而,研究的效力不足以发现临床有意义的差异。