Bellolio M Fernanda, Gilmore Rachel M, Ganti Latha
Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Generose Building-G410, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, Minnesota, USA, 55905.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jan 23;2014(1):CD005346. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005346.pub4.
People with hyperglycaemia concomitant with an acute stroke have greater mortality, stroke severity, and functional impairment when compared with those with normoglycaemia at stroke presentation. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2011.
To determine whether intensively monitoring insulin therapy aimed at maintaining serum glucose within a specific normal range (4 to 7.5 mmol/L) in the first 24 hours of acute ischaemic stroke influences outcome.
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (September 2013), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1950 to September 2013), EMBASE (1980 to September 2013), CINAHL (1982 to September 2013), Science Citation Index (1900 to September 2013), and Web of Science (ISI Web of Knowledge) (1993 to September 2013). We also searched ongoing trials registers and SCOPUS.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intensively monitored insulin therapy versus usual care in adults with acute ischaemic stroke.
We obtained a total of 1565 titles through the literature search. Two review authors independently selected the included articles and extracted the study characteristics, study quality, and data to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), mean difference (MD) and standardised mean difference (SMD) of outcome measures. We resolved disagreements by discussion.
We included 11 RCTs involving 1583 participants (791 participants in the intervention group and 792 in the control group). We found that there was no difference between the treatment and control groups in the outcomes of death or dependency (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.23) or final neurological deficit (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01). The rate of symptomatic hypoglycaemia was higher in the intervention group (OR 14.6, 95% CI 6.6 to 32.2). In the subgroup analyses of diabetes mellitus (DM) versus non-DM, we found no difference for the outcomes of death and disability or neurological deficit. The number needed to treat was not significant for the outcomes of death and final neurological deficit. The number needed to harm was nine for symptomatic hypoglycaemia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: After updating the results of our previous review, we found that the administration of intravenous insulin with the objective of maintaining serum glucose within a specific range in the first hours of acute ischaemic stroke does not provide benefit in terms of functional outcome, death, or improvement in final neurological deficit and significantly increased the number of hypoglycaemic episodes. Specifically, those people whose glucose levels were maintained within a tighter range with intravenous insulin experienced a greater risk of symptomatic and asymptomatic hypoglycaemia than those people in the control group.
与急性卒中发作时血糖正常的患者相比,伴有高血糖的急性卒中患者死亡率更高、卒中严重程度更高且功能障碍更严重。这是2011年首次发表的Cochrane系统评价的更新版。
确定在急性缺血性卒中的最初24小时内,旨在将血清葡萄糖维持在特定正常范围(4至7.5毫摩尔/升)的强化胰岛素治疗是否会影响预后。
我们检索了Cochrane卒中小组试验注册库(2013年9月)、CENTRAL(Cochrane图书馆2013年第8期)、MEDLINE(1950年至2013年9月)、EMBASE(1980年至2013年9月)、CINAHL(1982年至2013年9月)、科学引文索引(1900年至2013年9月)以及科学网(ISI知识网)(1993年至2013年9月)。我们还检索了正在进行的试验注册库和SCOPUS。
比较强化胰岛素治疗与常规治疗对急性缺血性卒中成年患者影响的随机对照试验(RCT)。
通过文献检索共获得1565个标题。两名综述作者独立选择纳入的文章,并提取研究特征、研究质量和数据,以估计结局指标的比值比(OR)和95%置信区间(CI)、均值差(MD)和标准化均值差(SMD)。我们通过讨论解决分歧。
我们纳入了11项RCT,涉及1583名参与者(干预组791名参与者,对照组792名参与者)。我们发现治疗组和对照组在死亡或依赖结局(OR 0.99,95%CI 0.79至1.23)或最终神经功能缺损方面没有差异(SMD -0.09,95%CI -0.19至0.01)。干预组有症状低血糖的发生率更高(OR 14.6,95%CI 6.6至32.2)。在糖尿病(DM)与非DM的亚组分析中,我们发现死亡、残疾或神经功能缺损结局没有差异。对于死亡和最终神经功能缺损结局,所需治疗人数无显著意义。对于有症状低血糖,伤害所需人数为9。
在更新我们之前综述的结果后,我们发现,在急性缺血性卒中的最初几小时内,以将血清葡萄糖维持在特定范围内为目标给予静脉胰岛素治疗,在功能结局、死亡或最终神经功能缺损改善方面并无益处,且显著增加了低血糖发作的次数。具体而言,与对照组相比,通过静脉胰岛素将血糖水平维持在更严格范围内的患者出现有症状和无症状低血糖的风险更高。