French Craig J, Glassford Neil J, Gantner Dashiell, Higgins Alisa M, Cooper David James, Nichol Alistair, Skrifvars Markus B, Imberger Georgina, Presneill Jeffrey, Bailey Michael, Bellomo Rinaldo
*Departments of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Western Health, Gordon Street, Footscray, Melbourne, Australia †Department of Intensive Care, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Melbourne, Australia ‡Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia §Department of Intensive Care, The Alfred, Melbourne, Australia ¶St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland ||Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia **The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, Australia ††Division of Intensive Care, Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Helsinki University Hospital and Helsinki University, Helsinki, Finland.
Ann Surg. 2017 Jan;265(1):54-62. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001746.
To perform a meta-analysis of all relevant randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in critically ill trauma patients.
ESAs have effects beyond erythropoiesis. The administration of the ESA epoetin alfa to critically ill trauma patients has been associated with a reduction in mortality.
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. We searched Medline, Medline in Process, and other nonindexed citations, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database from inception until September 9, 2015, for randomized controlled trials comparing ESAs to placebo (or no ESA).
We identified 9 eligible studies that randomly assigned 2607 critically ill patients after trauma to an ESA or placebo (or no ESA). Compared with placebo (or no ESA), ESA therapy was associated with a substantial reduction in mortality [risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.79, P = 0.0001, I = 0%). In patients with traumatic brain injury, ESA therapy did not increase the number of patients surviving with moderate disability or good recovery (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88-1.15, P = 0.95, I = 0%). With the dosing regimens employed in the included studies, ESA therapy did not increase the risk of lower limb proximal deep venous thrombosis (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.72-1.29, P = 0.78, I = 0%).
The administration of ESAs to critically ill trauma patients is associated with a significant improvement in mortality without an increase in the rate of lower limb proximal deep venous thrombosis. Given the worldwide public health significance of these findings research to validate or refute them is required.
对所有评估促红细胞生成素(ESA)对重症创伤患者影响的相关随机对照试验进行荟萃分析。
ESA具有促红细胞生成以外的作用。对重症创伤患者使用ESA促红细胞生成素α与死亡率降低相关。
我们进行了一项系统评价和采用试验序贯分析的荟萃分析。我们检索了Medline、Medline在研文献及其他未索引文献、EMBASE和Cochrane数据库,检索时间从建库至2015年9月9日,以查找比较ESA与安慰剂(或不使用ESA)的随机对照试验。
我们确定了9项符合条件的研究,这些研究将2607例创伤后重症患者随机分为接受ESA治疗组或安慰剂组(或不使用ESA组)。与安慰剂组(或不使用ESA组)相比,ESA治疗与死亡率大幅降低相关[风险比(RR)0.63,95%置信区间(CI)0.49 - 0.79,P = 0.0001,I² = 0%]。在创伤性脑损伤患者中,ESA治疗并未增加中度残疾或恢复良好存活患者的数量(RR 1.00,95% CI 0.88 - 1.15,P = 0.95,I² = 0%)。在所纳入研究采用的给药方案下,ESA治疗并未增加下肢近端深静脉血栓形成的风险(RR 0.97,95% CI 0.72 - 1.29,P = 0.78,I² = 0%)。
对重症创伤患者使用ESA与死亡率显著改善相关,且未增加下肢近端深静脉血栓形成率。鉴于这些发现对全球公共卫生的重要性,需要进行研究以验证或反驳它们。