Kwan Irene, Bunn Frances, Chinnock Paul, Roberts Ian
Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), Social Science Research Unit (SSRU), Institute of Education, University of London, 10 Woburn Square, London, UK, WC1H 0NR.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Mar 5;2014(3):CD002245. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002245.pub2.
Treatment of haemorrhagic shock involves maintaining blood pressure and tissue perfusion until bleeding is controlled. Different resuscitation strategies have been used to maintain the blood pressure in trauma patients until bleeding is controlled. However, while maintaining blood pressure may prevent shock, it may worsen bleeding.
To examine the effect on mortality and coagulation times of two intravenous fluid administration strategies in the management of haemorrhagic hypovolaemia, early compared to delayed administration and larger compared to smaller volume of fluid administered.
We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic + Embase (OvidSP), ISI Web of Science (SCI-Expanded and CPCI-S) and clinical trials registries. We checked reference lists of identified articles and contacted authors and experts in the field. The most recent search was run on 5 February 2014.
Randomised trials of the timing and volume of intravenous fluid administration in trauma patients with bleeding. Trials in which different types of intravenous fluid were compared were excluded.
Two authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality.
Six trials involving a total of 2128 people were included in this review. We did not combine the results quantitatively because the interventions and patient populations were so diverse. Early versus delayed fluid administration Three trials reported mortality and two reported coagulation data.In the first trial (n = 598) the relative risk (RR) for death with early fluid administration was 1.26 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.58). The weighted mean differences (WMD) for prothrombin time and partial thromboplastin time were 2.7 (95% CI 0.9 to 4.5) and 4.3 (95% CI 1.74 to 6.9) seconds, respectively.In the second trial (n = 50) the RR for death with early blood transfusion was 5.4 (95% CI 0.3 to 107.1). The WMD for partial thromboplastin time was 7.0 (95% CI 6.0 to 8.0) seconds. In the third trial (n = 1309) the RR for death with early fluid administration was 1.06 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.47). Larger versus smaller volume of fluid administration Three trials reported mortality and one reported coagulation data.In the first trial (n = 36) the RR for death with a larger volume of fluid resuscitation was 0.80 (95% CI 0.28 to 22.29). Prothrombin time and partial thromboplastin time were 14.8 and 47.3 seconds in those who received a larger volume of fluid, as compared to 13.9 and 35.1 seconds in the comparison group.In the second trial (n = 110) the RR for death with a high systolic blood pressure resuscitation target (100 mm Hg) maintained with a larger volume of fluid as compared to a low systolic blood pressure resuscitation target (70 mm Hg) maintained with a smaller volume of fluid was 1.00 (95% CI 0.26 to 3.81). In the third trial (n = 25) there were no deaths.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence from randomised controlled trials for or against early or larger volume of intravenous fluid administration in uncontrolled haemorrhage. There is continuing uncertainty about the best fluid administration strategy in bleeding trauma patients. Further randomised controlled trials are needed to establish the most effective fluid resuscitation strategy.
失血性休克的治疗包括维持血压和组织灌注直至出血得到控制。不同的复苏策略已被用于维持创伤患者的血压直至出血得到控制。然而,虽然维持血压可能预防休克,但可能会加重出血。
研究两种静脉输液给药策略在失血性低血容量管理中对死亡率和凝血时间的影响,即早期与延迟给药以及大量与小量给药的比较。
我们检索了Cochrane损伤组专业注册库、Cochrane图书馆中的Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、Ovid MEDLINE(R)、Ovid MEDLINE(R)在研及其他非索引引文、Ovid MEDLINE(R)每日更新版和Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R)、Embase经典版+Embase(OvidSP)、ISI科学网(SCI-Expanded和CPCI-S)以及临床试验注册库。我们检查了已识别文章的参考文献列表,并联系了该领域的作者和专家。最近一次检索于2014年2月5日进行。
对有出血的创伤患者进行静脉输液给药时间和剂量的随机试验。比较不同类型静脉输液的试验被排除。
两位作者独立提取数据并评估试验质量。
本综述纳入了6项试验,共2128人。我们没有对结果进行定量合并,因为干预措施和患者群体差异很大。早期与延迟给药:三项试验报告了死亡率,两项报告了凝血数据。在第一项试验(n = 598)中,早期输液给药的死亡相对风险(RR)为1.26(95%置信区间(CI)1.00至1.58)。凝血酶原时间和活化部分凝血活酶时间的加权平均差(WMD)分别为2.7(95%CI 0.9至4.5)秒和4.3(95%CI 1.74至6.9)秒。在第二项试验(n = 50)中,早期输血的死亡RR为5.4(95%CI 0.3至107.1)。活化部分凝血活酶时间的WMD为7.0(95%CI 6.0至8.0)秒。在第三项试验(n = 1309)中,早期输液给药 的死亡RR为1.06(95%CI 0.77至1.47)。大量与小量给药:三项试验报告了死亡率,一项报告了凝血数据。在第一项试验(n = 36)中,大量液体复苏的死亡RR为0.80(95%CI 0.28至22.29)。接受大量液体的患者凝血酶原时间和活化部分凝血活酶时间分别为14.8秒和47.3秒,而对照组分别为13.9秒和35.1秒。在第二项试验(n = 110)中,与以较小量液体维持低收缩压复苏目标(70 mmHg)相比,以较大量液体维持高收缩压复苏目标(100 mmHg)的死亡RR为1.00(95%CI 0.26至3.81)。在第三项试验(n = 25)中无死亡病例。
我们未从随机对照试验中找到支持或反对在未控制出血时早期或大量静脉输液给药的证据。对于出血创伤患者的最佳输液给药策略仍存在不确定性。需要进一步的随机对照试验来确定最有效的液体复苏策略。