Alsawadi Abdulrahman
Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust, Colchester, Essex, United Kingdom.
Open Access Emerg Med. 2012 May 30;4:21-9. doi: 10.2147/OAEM.S30666. eCollection 2012.
Trauma is a major cause of death and disability. The current trend in trauma management is the rapid administration of fluid as per the Advanced Trauma Life Support guidelines, although there is no evidence to support this and even some to suggest it might be harmful. Some guidelines, protocols, and recommendations have been established for the use of permissive hypotension although there is reluctance concerning its application in blunt injuries.
The aim of this review is to determine whether there is evidence of the use of permissive hypotension in the management of hemorrhagic shock in blunt trauma patients. This review also aims to search for any reason for the reluctance to apply permissive hypotension in blunt injuries.
This systematic review has followed the steps recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. It is also being reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement and checklist. Database searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases and the Cochrane Library were made for eligible studies as well as journal searches. Inclusion criteria included systematic reviews that have similar primary questions to this review and randomized controlled trials where patients with blunt torso injuries and hemorrhagic shock were not excluded. Rapid or early fluid administration was compared with controlled or delayed fluid resuscitation and a significant outcome was obtained.
No systematic reviews attempting to answer similar questions were found. Two randomized controlled trials with mixed types of injuries in the included patients found no significant difference between the groups used in each study. Data concerning the question of this review was sought after these papers were appraised.
The limited available data are not conclusive. However, the supportive theoretical concept and laboratory evidence do not show any reason for treating blunt injuries differently from other traumatic injuries. Moreover, permissive hypotension is being used for some nontraumatic causes of hemorrhagic shock and in theater. Therefore, this should encourage interested researchers to continue clinical work in this important field.
创伤是死亡和残疾的主要原因。目前创伤管理的趋势是根据高级创伤生命支持指南快速输注液体,尽管没有证据支持这一点,甚至有一些证据表明这可能有害。尽管对于在钝性损伤中应用允许性低血压存在顾虑,但已经制定了一些关于使用允许性低血压的指南、方案和建议。
本综述的目的是确定在钝性创伤患者失血性休克管理中是否有使用允许性低血压的证据。本综述还旨在寻找在钝性损伤中不愿应用允许性低血压的任何原因。
本系统综述遵循了《Cochrane干预性系统评价手册》中推荐的步骤。它也按照系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目声明及清单进行报告。对MEDLINE、EMBASE、综述与传播中心数据库和Cochrane图书馆进行数据库检索,以查找符合条件的研究以及期刊检索。纳入标准包括与本综述有相似主要问题的系统评价,以及未排除钝性躯干损伤和失血性休克患者的随机对照试验。将快速或早期液体输注与控制性或延迟性液体复苏进行比较,并获得了显著结果。
未找到试图回答类似问题的系统评价。两项纳入患者损伤类型混合的随机对照试验发现,每项研究中所使用的组间无显著差异。在对这些论文进行评估后,寻求了与本综述问题相关的数据。
有限的现有数据尚无定论。然而,支持性的理论概念和实验室证据并未表明对钝性损伤与其他创伤性损伤进行不同治疗有任何理由。此外,允许性低血压正被用于一些非创伤性失血性休克原因及手术室中。因此,这应鼓励感兴趣的研究人员在这一重要领域继续开展临床工作。