Arevalo-Rodriguez Ingrid, Ciapponi Agustín, Roqué i Figuls Marta, Muñoz Luis, Bonfill Cosp Xavier
Division of Research, Fundación Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud - Hospital de San José/Hospital Infantil de San José, Carrera 19 Nº 8a - 32, Bogotá D.C., Colombia, 11001.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Mar 7;3(3):CD009199. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009199.pub3.
Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is a common complication of lumbar punctures. Several theories have identified the leakage of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) through the hole in the dura as a cause of this side effect. It is therefore necessary to take preventive measures to avoid this complication. Prolonged bed rest has been used to treat PDPH once it has started, but it is unknown whether prolonged bed rest can also be used to prevent it. Similarly, the value of administering fluids additional to those of normal dietary intake to restore the loss of CSF produced by the puncture is unknown. This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 7, 2013) on "Posture and fluids for preventing post-dural puncture headache".
To assess whether prolonged bed rest combined with different body and head positions, as well as administration of supplementary fluids after lumbar puncture, prevent the onset of PDPH in people undergoing lumbar puncture for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS, as well as trial registries up to February 2015.
We identified randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of bed rest versus immediate mobilization, head-down tilt versus horizontal position, prone versus supine positions during bed rest, and administration of supplementary fluids versus no/less supplementation, as prevention measures for PDPH in people who have undergone lumbar puncture.
Two review authors independently assessed the studies for eligibility through the web-based software EROS (Early Review Organizing Software). Two different review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We resolved any disagreements by consensus. We extracted data on cases of PDPH, severe PDPH, and any headache after lumbar puncture and performed intention-to-treat analyses and sensitivity analyses by risk of bias. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
We included 24 trials with 2996 participants in this updated review. The number of participants in each trial varied from 39 to 382. Most of the included studies compared bed rest versus immediate mobilization, and only two assessed the effects of supplementary fluids versus no supplementation. We judged the overall risk of bias of the included studies as low to unclear. The overall quality of evidence was low to moderate, downgraded because of the risk of bias assessment in most cases. The primary outcome in our review was the presence of PDPH.There was low quality evidence for an absence of benefits associated with bed rest compared with immediate mobilization on the incidence of severe PDPH (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.41; participants = 1568; studies = 9) and moderate quality evidence on the incidence of any headache after lumbar puncture (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.32; participants = 2477; studies = 18). Furthermore, bed rest probably increased PDPH (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.48; participants = 1519; studies = 12) compared with immediate mobilization. An analysis restricted to the most methodologically rigorous trials (i.e. those with low risk of bias in allocation method, missing data and blinding of outcome assessment) gave similar results. There was low quality evidence for an absence of benefits associated with fluid supplementation on the incidence of severe PDPH (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.73; participants = 100; studies = 1) and PDPH (RR 1; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.69; participants = 100; studies = 1), and moderate quality evidence on the incidence of any headache after lumbar puncture (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.34; participants = 200; studies = 2). We did not expect other adverse events and did not assess them in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the previous version of this review, we found one new study for inclusion, but the conclusion remains unchanged. We considered the quality of the evidence for most of the outcomes assessed in this review to be low to moderate. As identified studies had shortcomings on aspects related to randomization and blinding of outcome assessment, we therefore downgraded the quality of the evidence. In general, there was no evidence suggesting that routine bed rest after dural puncture is beneficial for the prevention of PDPH onset. The role of fluid supplementation in the prevention of PDPH remains unclear.
腰穿后头痛(PDPH)是腰椎穿刺常见的并发症。有几种理论认为脑脊液(CSF)通过硬脊膜上的孔漏出是这种副作用的原因。因此,有必要采取预防措施以避免这种并发症。一旦PDPH发生,长时间卧床休息已被用于治疗,但长时间卧床休息是否也可用于预防尚不清楚。同样,在正常饮食摄入之外补充液体以弥补穿刺导致的脑脊液流失的价值也不清楚。本综述是对Cochrane系统评价数据库(2013年第7期)中先前发表的关于“预防腰穿后头痛的体位和液体”的综述的更新。
评估长时间卧床休息结合不同的身体和头部姿势,以及腰椎穿刺后补充液体,是否能预防因诊断或治疗目的而进行腰椎穿刺的人群发生PDPH。
我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、EMBASE和LILACS,以及截至2015年2月的试验注册库。
我们纳入了随机对照试验,这些试验比较了卧床休息与立即活动、头低倾斜位与水平位、卧床休息时俯卧位与仰卧位,以及补充液体与不补充/少量补充液体作为预防腰穿人群发生PDPH的措施的效果。
两位综述作者通过基于网络的软件EROS(早期综述组织软件)独立评估研究的纳入资格。两位不同的综述作者使用Cochrane干预措施系统评价手册中概述的标准独立评估偏倚风险。我们通过共识解决任何分歧。我们提取了关于PDPH病例、严重PDPH病例以及腰穿后任何头痛情况的数据,并按偏倚风险进行意向性分析和敏感性分析。我们使用GRADE(推荐分级评估、制定与评价)评估证据,并创建了一个“结果总结”表。
在本次更新的综述中,我们纳入了24项试验,共2996名参与者。每项试验的参与者数量从39到382不等。纳入的研究大多比较了卧床休息与立即活动,只有两项评估了补充液体与不补充液体的效果。我们判断纳入研究的总体偏倚风险为低至不明确。证据的总体质量为低至中等,由于大多数情况下的偏倚风险评估而被降级。我们综述的主要结局是PDPH的发生。与立即活动相比,关于卧床休息对严重PDPH发生率无益处的证据质量低(风险比(RR)0.98;95%置信区间(CI)0.68至1.41;参与者 = 1568;研究 = 9),关于腰穿后任何头痛发生率的证据质量中等(RR 1.16;95% CI 1.02至1.32;参与者 = 2477;研究 = 18)。此外,与立即活动相比,卧床休息可能增加PDPH的发生(RR 1.24;95% CI 1.04至1.48;参与者 = 1519;研究 = 12)。对方法学上最严谨的试验(即分配方法、缺失数据和结局评估盲法方面偏倚风险低的试验)进行的分析得出了类似结果。关于补充液体对严重PDPH发生率(RR 0.67;95% CI 0.26至1.73;参与者 = 100;研究 = 1)和PDPH发生率(RR 1;95% CI 0.59至1.69;参与者 = 100;研究 = 1)无益处的证据质量低,关于腰穿后任何头痛发生率的证据质量中等(RR 0.94;95% CI 0.66至1.34;参与者 = 200;研究 = 2)。我们未预期其他不良事件,因此在本综述中未对其进行评估。
自本综述的上一版本以来,我们发现一项新的研究可纳入,但结论保持不变。我们认为本综述中评估的大多数结局的证据质量为低至中等。由于纳入的研究在随机化和结局评估盲法方面存在不足,因此我们降低了证据的质量。总体而言,没有证据表明硬脊膜穿刺后常规卧床休息对预防PDPH的发生有益。补充液体在预防PDPH中的作用仍不明确。