Asrani Varsha M, Yoon Harry D, Megill Robin D, Windsor John A, Petrov Maxim S
From the Department of Surgery, University of Auckland (VMA, HDY, RDM, JAW, MSP); and Nutrition and Dietetics, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand (VMA).
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Feb;95(5):e2463. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002463.
Gastrointestinal (GI) dysmotility is a common complication in acute, critically ill, postoperative, and chronic patients that may lead to impaired nutrient delivery, poor clinical, and patient-reported outcomes. Several pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions to treat GI dysmotility were investigated in dozens of clinical studies. However, they often yielded conflicting results, at least in part, because various (nonstandardized) definitions of GI dysmotility were used and methodological quality of studies was poor. While a universally accepted definition of GI dysmotility is yet to be developed, a systematic analysis of data derived from double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials may provide robust data on absolute and relative effectiveness of various interventions as the study outcome (GI motility) was assessed in the least biased manner.To systematically review data from double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials to determine and compare the effectiveness of interventions that affect GI motility.Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and EMBASE) were searched. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis. The summary estimates were reported as mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).A total of 38 double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials involving 2371 patients were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. These studies investigated a total of 20 different interventions, of which 6 interventions were meta-analyzed. Of them, the use of dopamine receptor antagonists (MD, -8.99; 95% CI, -17.72 to -0.27; P = 0.04) and macrolides (MD, -26.04; 95% CI, -51.25 to -0.82; P = 0.04) significantly improved GI motility compared with the placebo group. The use of botulism toxin significantly impaired GI motility compared with the placebo group (MD, 5.31; 95% CI, -0.04 to 10.67; P = 0.05). Other interventions (dietary factors, probiotics, hormones) did not affect GI motility.Based on the best available data and taking into account the safety profile of each class of intervention, dopamine receptor antagonists and macrolides significantly improve GI motility and are medications of choice in treating GI dysmotility.
胃肠道动力障碍是急性、危重症、术后及慢性疾病患者中常见的并发症,可能导致营养输送受损、临床结局不佳以及患者报告的不良结果。在数十项临床研究中,对几种治疗胃肠道动力障碍的药物和非药物干预措施进行了研究。然而,这些研究结果往往相互矛盾,至少部分原因是使用了各种(未标准化)的胃肠道动力障碍定义,且研究的方法学质量较差。虽然尚未形成一个被普遍接受的胃肠道动力障碍定义,但对双盲安慰剂对照随机试验得出的数据进行系统分析,可能会提供有关各种干预措施绝对和相对有效性的可靠数据,因为研究结果(胃肠动力)是以最无偏倚的方式进行评估的。
为了系统回顾双盲安慰剂对照随机试验的数据,以确定并比较影响胃肠动力的干预措施的有效性。
检索了三个电子数据库(MEDLINE、SCOPUS和EMBASE)。采用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析。汇总估计值以平均差(MD)及相应的95%置信区间(CI)报告。
共有38项涉及2371例患者的双盲安慰剂对照随机试验符合纳入该系统评价的标准。这些研究共调查了20种不同的干预措施,其中6种干预措施进行了荟萃分析。其中,与安慰剂组相比,使用多巴胺受体拮抗剂(MD,-8.99;95%CI,-17.72至-0.27;P = 0.04)和大环内酯类药物(MD,-26.04;95%CI,-51.25至-0.82;P = 0.04)可显著改善胃肠动力。与安慰剂组相比,使用肉毒杆菌毒素可显著损害胃肠动力(MD,5.31;95%CI,-0.04至10.67;P = 0.05)。其他干预措施(饮食因素、益生菌、激素)对胃肠动力无影响。
基于现有最佳数据并考虑到各类干预措施的安全性,多巴胺受体拮抗剂和大环内酯类药物可显著改善胃肠动力,是治疗胃肠道动力障碍的首选药物。