Zacharias Mathew, Mugawar Mohan, Herbison G Peter, Walker Robert J, Hovhannisyan Karen, Sivalingam Pal, Conlon Niamh P
Department of Anaesthesia & Intensive Care, Dunedin Hospital, Great King Street, Dunedin, New Zealand, Private Bag 192.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Sep 11;2013(9):CD003590. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003590.pub4.
Various methods have been used to try to protect kidney function in patients undergoing surgery. These most often include pharmacological interventions such as dopamine and its analogues, diuretics, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, N-acetyl cysteine (NAC), atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP), sodium bicarbonate, antioxidants and erythropoietin (EPO).
This review is aimed at determining the effectiveness of various measures advocated to protect patients' kidneys during the perioperative period.We considered the following questions: (1) Are any specific measures known to protect kidney function during the perioperative period? (2) Of measures used to protect the kidneys during the perioperative period, does any one method appear to be more effective than the others? (3) Of measures used to protect the kidneys during the perioperative period,does any one method appear to be safer than the others?
In this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2012), MEDLINE (Ovid SP) (1966 to August 2012) and EMBASE (Ovid SP) (1988 to August 2012). We originally handsearched six journals (Anesthesia and Analgesia, Anesthesiology, Annals of Surgery, British Journal of Anaesthesia, Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, and Journal of Vascular Surgery) (1985 to 2004). However, because these journals are properly indexed in MEDLINE, we decided to rely on electronic searches only without handsearching the journals from 2004 onwards.
We selected all randomized controlled trials in adults undergoing surgery for which a treatment measure was used for the purpose of providing renal protection during the perioperative period.
We selected 72 studies for inclusion in this review. Two review authors extracted data from all selected studies and entered them into RevMan 5.1; then the data were appropriately analysed. We performed subgroup analyses for type of intervention, type of surgical procedure and pre-existing renal dysfunction. We undertook sensitivity analyses for studies with high and moderately good methodological quality.
The updated review included data from 72 studies, comprising a total of 4378 participants. Of these, 2291 received some form of treatment and 2087 acted as controls. The interventions consisted most often of different pharmaceutical agents, such as dopamine and its analogues, diuretics, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, NAC, ANP, sodium bicarbonate, antioxidants and EPO or selected hydration fluids. Some clinical heterogeneity and varying risk of bias were noted amongst the studies, although we were able to meaningfully interpret the data. Results showed significant heterogeneity and indicated that most interventions provided no benefit.Data on perioperative mortality were reported in 41 studies and data on acute renal injury in 44 studies (all interventions combined). Because of considerable clinical heterogeneity (different clinical scenarios, as well as considerable methodological variability amongst the studies), we did not perform a meta-analysis on the combined data.Subgroup analysis of major interventions and surgical procedures showed no significant influence of interventions on reported mortality and acute renal injury. For the subgroup of participants who had pre-existing renal damage, the risk of mortality from 10 trials (959 participants) was estimated as odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.52; the risk of acute renal injury (as reported in the trials) was estimated from 11 trials (979 participants) as OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80. Subgroup analysis of studies that were rated as having low risk of bias revealed that 19 studies reported mortality numbers (1604 participants); OR was 1.01, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.90. Fifteen studies reported data on acute renal injury (criteria chosen by the individual studies; 1600 participants); OR was 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No reliable evidence from the available literature suggests that interventions during surgery can protect the kidneys from damage. However, the criteria used to diagnose acute renal damage varied in many of the older studies selected for inclusion in this review, many of which suffered from poor methodological quality such as insufficient participant numbers and poor definitions of end points such as acute renal failure and acute renal injury. Recent methods of detecting renal damage such as the use of specific biomarkers and better defined criteria for identifying renal damage (RIFLE (risk, injury, failure, loss of kidney function and end-stage renal failure) or AKI (acute kidney injury)) may have to be explored further to determine any possible benefit derived from interventions used to protect the kidneys during the perioperative period.
已采用多种方法试图保护手术患者的肾功能。这些方法最常包括药物干预,如多巴胺及其类似物、利尿剂、钙通道阻滞剂、血管紧张素转换酶(ACE)抑制剂、N - 乙酰半胱氨酸(NAC)、心房利钠肽(ANP)、碳酸氢钠、抗氧化剂和促红细胞生成素(EPO)。
本综述旨在确定围手术期为保护患者肾脏所倡导的各种措施的有效性。我们考虑了以下问题:(1)围手术期是否有已知的保护肾功能的特定措施?(2)在围手术期用于保护肾脏的措施中,是否有一种方法比其他方法更有效?(3)在围手术期用于保护肾脏的措施中,是否有一种方法比其他方法更安全?
在本次更新的综述中,我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(《Cochrane图书馆》,2012年第2期)、MEDLINE(Ovid SP)(1966年至2012年8月)和EMBASE(Ovid SP)(1988年至2012年8月)。我们最初手工检索了六种期刊(《麻醉与镇痛》《麻醉学》《外科学年鉴》《英国麻醉学杂志》《胸心血管外科杂志》和《血管外科学杂志》)(1985年至2004年)。然而,由于这些期刊已在MEDLINE中妥善索引,我们决定从2004年起仅依靠电子检索,不再手工检索这些期刊。
我们选择了所有对接受手术的成年人进行的随机对照试验,这些试验使用了一种治疗措施以在围手术期提供肾脏保护。
我们选择了72项研究纳入本综述。两位综述作者从所有选定的研究中提取数据,并将其录入RevMan 5.1;然后对数据进行了适当分析。我们对干预类型、手术类型和术前存在的肾功能不全进行了亚组分析。我们对方法学质量高和中等良好的研究进行了敏感性分析。
本次更新的综述纳入了72项研究的数据,共4378名参与者。其中,2291名接受了某种形式的治疗,2087名作为对照。干预措施最常包括不同的药物制剂,如多巴胺及其类似物、利尿剂、钙通道阻滞剂、ACE抑制剂、NAC、ANP、碳酸氢钠、抗氧化剂和EPO或选定的补液。尽管我们能够有意义地解释数据,但研究中仍存在一些临床异质性和不同程度的偏倚风险。结果显示存在显著异质性,表明大多数干预措施并无益处。41项研究报告了围手术期死亡率数据,44项研究报告了急性肾损伤数据(所有干预措施合并)。由于存在相当大的临床异质性(不同的临床情况,以及研究之间相当大的方法学变异性),我们未对合并数据进行荟萃分析。主要干预措施和手术的亚组分析表明,干预措施对报告的死亡率和急性肾损伤无显著影响。对于术前已存在肾损害的参与者亚组,10项试验(959名参与者)的死亡风险估计为比值比(OR)0.76,95%置信区间(CI)0.