Zheng Guo Hua, Yang Liu, Chen Hai Ying, Chu Jian Feng, Mei Lijuan
College of Rehabilitation Medicine, Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, No 1, Huatuo Road, University Town, Fuzhou, Fujian, China, 350108.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jun 4;2014(6):CD009162. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009162.pub2.
Up to 80% of hospitalised patients receive intravenous therapy at some point during their admission. About 20% to 70% of patients receiving intravenous therapy develop phlebitis. Infusion phlebitis has become one of the most common complications in patients with intravenous therapy. However, the effects of routine treatments such as external application of 75% alcohol or 50% to 75% magnesium sulphate (MgSO4) are unsatisfactory. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop new methods to prevent and alleviate infusion phlebitis.
To systematically assess the effects of external application of Aloe vera for the prevention and treatment of infusion phlebitis associated with the presence of an intravenous access device.
The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (last searched February 2014) and CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1). In addition the TSC searched MEDLINE to week 5 January 2014, EMBASE to Week 6 2014 and AMED to February 2014. The authors searched the following Chinese databases until 28 February 2014: Chinese BioMedical Database; Traditional Chinese Medical Database System; China National Knowledge Infrastructure; Chinese VIP information; Chinese Medical Current Contents; Chinese Academic Conference Papers Database and Chinese Dissertation Database; and China Medical Academic Conference. Bibliographies of retrieved and relevant publications were searched. There were no restrictions on the basis of date or language of publication.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (qRCTs) were included if they involved participants receiving topical Aloe vera or Aloe vera-derived products at the site of punctured skin, with or without routine treatment at the same site.
Two review authors independently extracted the data on the study characteristics, description of methodology and outcomes of the eligible trials, and assessed study quality. Data were analysed using RevMan 5.1. For dichotomous outcomes, the effects were estimated by using risk ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs were used to estimate their effects.
A total of 43 trials (35 RCTs and eight qRCTs) with 7465 participants were identified. Twenty-two trials with 5546 participants were involved in prevention of Aloe vera for phlebitis, and a further 21 trials with 1919 participants were involved in the treatment of phlebitis. The included studies compared external application of Aloe vera alone or plus non-Aloe vera interventions with no treatment or the same non-Aloe vera interventions. The duration of the intervention lasted from one day to 15 days. Most of the included studies were of low methodological quality with concerns for selection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias and publication bias.The effects of external application of fresh Aloe vera on preventing total incidence of phlebitis varied across the studies and we did not combine the data. Aloe vera reduced the occurrence of third degree phlebitis (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.11, P < 0.00001) and second degree phlebitis (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.31, P < 0.00001) compared with no treatment. Compared with external application of 75% alcohol, or 33% MgSO4 alone, Aloe vera reduced the total incidence of phlebitis (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.28, P = 0.004 and RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.78, P = 0.005 respectively) but there was no clear evidence of an effect when compared with 50% or 75% MgSO4 (total incidence of phlebitis RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.07, P = 0.07 and RR 1.10 95% CI 0.54 to 2.25, P = 0.79 respectively; third degree phlebitis (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.02, P = 0.051 and RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.08 to 18.73, P = 0.9 respectively; second degree phlebitis RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.23, P = 0.53 compared to 75% MgSO4) except for a reduction in second degree phlebitis when Aloe vera was compared with 50% MgSO4 (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.50, P < 0.0001).For the treatment of phlebitis, Aloe vera was more effective than 33% or 50% MgSO4 in terms of both any improvement (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.24, P < 0.0001 and RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.28, P < 0.0001 respectively) and marked improvement of phlebitis (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.70, P < 0.001 and RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.87, P = 0.0002 respectively). Compared with 50% MgSO4, Aloe vera also improved recovery rates from phlebitis (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.61, P < 0.0001). Compared with routine treatments such as external application of hirudoid, sulphonic acid mucopolysaccharide and dexamethasone used alone, addition of Aloe vera improved recovery from phlebitis (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.46, P = 0.001) and had a positive effect on overall improvement (marked improvement RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.47, P = 0.0003; any improvement RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.35, P < 0.0001). Aloe vera, either alone or in combination with routine treatment, was more effective than routine treatment alone for improving the symptoms of phlebitis including shortening the time of elimination of red swelling symptoms, time of pain relief at the location of the infusion vein and time of resolution of phlebitis. Other secondary outcomes including health-related quality of life and adverse effects were not reported in the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no strong evidence for preventing or treating infusion phlebitis with external application of Aloe vera. The current available evidence is limited by the poor methodological quality and risk of selective outcome reporting of the included studies, and by variation in the size of effect across the studies. The positive effects observed with external application of Aloe vera in preventing or treating infusion phlebitis compared with no intervention or external application of 33% or 50% MgSO4 should therefore be viewed with caution.
高达80%的住院患者在住院期间的某个时间会接受静脉治疗。接受静脉治疗的患者中约20%至70%会发生静脉炎。输液性静脉炎已成为静脉治疗患者中最常见的并发症之一。然而,诸如外用75%酒精或50%至75%硫酸镁(MgSO₄)等常规治疗的效果并不理想。因此,迫切需要开发预防和减轻输液性静脉炎的新方法。
系统评价外用芦荟预防和治疗与静脉通路装置相关的输液性静脉炎的效果。
Cochrane外周血管疾病组试验检索协调员(TSC)检索了专业注册库(最后检索时间为2014年2月)和Cochrane系统评价中心注册库(CENTRAL,2014年第1期)。此外,TSC检索了MEDLINE至2014年1月5日的第5周、EMBASE至2014年第6周以及AMED至2014年2月。作者检索了以下中文数据库直至2014年2月28日:中国生物医学文献数据库、中医数据库系统、中国知网、维普资讯、中国生物医学期刊数据库、中国学术会议论文数据库、中国学位论文数据库以及中国医学学术会议。对检索到的及相关出版物的参考文献进行了检索。对出版日期和语言没有限制。
如果随机对照试验(RCT)和半随机对照试验(qRCT)涉及在穿刺皮肤部位接受局部芦荟或芦荟衍生产品的参与者,无论该部位是否进行常规治疗,均纳入研究。
两位综述作者独立提取符合条件试验的研究特征、方法描述和结果数据,并评估研究质量。使用RevMan 5.1进行数据分析。对于二分法结局,采用风险比(RR)及其95%置信区间(CI)估计效应。对于连续性结局,采用均值差(MD)及其95%CI估计效应。
共纳入43项试验(35项RCT和8项qRCT),涉及7465名参与者。22项试验(5546名参与者)涉及芦荟预防静脉炎,另外21项试验(1919名参与者)涉及芦荟治疗静脉炎。纳入的研究比较了单独外用芦荟或芦荟加非芦荟干预措施与不治疗或相同的非芦荟干预措施。干预持续时间从1天到15天不等。纳入的大多数研究方法学质量较低,存在选择偏倚、失访偏倚、报告偏倚和发表偏倚问题。新鲜芦荟外用预防静脉炎总发生率的效果在各研究中有所不同,因此未合并数据。与不治疗相比,芦荟降低了三度静脉炎的发生率(RR 为0.06,95%CI 为0.03至0.11,P < 0.00001)和二度静脉炎的发生率(RR 为0.18,95%CI 为0.10至0.31,P < 0.00001)。与单独外用75%酒精或33%硫酸镁相比,芦荟降低了静脉炎的总发生率(RR 分别为0.02,95%CI 为0.00至0.28,P = 0.004和RR 为0.43,95%CI 为0.24至0.78,P = 0.005),但与50%或75%硫酸镁相比,没有明确的效果证据(静脉炎总发生率RR 分别为0.41,95%CI 为0.16至1.07,P = 0.07和RR 为1.10,95%CI 为0.54至2.25,P = 0.79;三度静脉炎RR 分别为0.28,95%CI 为0.07至1.02,P = 0.051和RR 为1.19,95%CI 为0.08至18.73,P = 0.9;与75%硫酸镁相比,二度静脉炎RR 为0.68,95%CI 为0.21至2.23,P = 0.53),不过与50%硫酸镁相比,芦荟降低了二度静脉炎的发生率(RR 为0.26,95%CI 为0.14至0.50,P < 0.0001)。对于静脉炎的治疗,在任何改善方面(RR 分别为1.16,95%CI 为1.09至1.24,P < 0.0001和RR 为1.22,95%CI 为1.16至1.28,P < 0.0001)以及静脉炎的显著改善方面(RR 分别为1.97,95%CI 为1.44至2.70,P < 0.001和RR 为1.56,95%CI 为1.29至1.87,P = 0.0002),芦荟比33%或50%硫酸镁更有效。与50%硫酸镁相比,芦荟还提高了静脉炎的恢复率(RR 为1.42,95%CI 为1.24至1.61,P < 0.0001)。与单独外用喜疗妥、磺酸粘多糖和地塞米松等常规治疗相比,添加芦荟可改善静脉炎的恢复情况(RR 为1.75,95%CI 为1.24至2.46,P = 0.001),并对总体改善有积极影响(显著改善RR 为1.26,95%CI 为1.09至1.47,P = 0.000三;任何改善RR 为1.23,95%CI 为1.13至1.35,P < 0.0001)。芦荟单独使用或与常规治疗联合使用,在改善静脉炎症状方面比单独常规治疗更有效,包括缩短红肿症状消退时间、输液静脉部位疼痛缓解时间和静脉炎消退时间。纳入的研究未报告其他次要结局,包括与健康相关的生活质量和不良反应。
外用芦荟预防或治疗输液性静脉炎没有充分证据。目前可得的证据受纳入研究方法学质量差、选择性结局报告风险以及各研究效应大小差异的限制。因此,与无干预或外用33%或50%硫酸镁相比,外用芦荟在预防或治疗输液性静脉炎方面观察到的积极效果应谨慎看待。