Department of Cardiovascular Sciences and National Institute for Health Research Leicester Biomedical Research Unit in Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Leicester, Clinical Sciences Wing, Glenfield General Hospital, Leicester LE3?9QP, UK.
Br J Anaesth. 2017 Jun 1;118(6):823-833. doi: 10.1093/bja/aex100.
Viscoelastic point-of-care tests are commonly used to provide prompt diagnosis of coagulopathy and allow targeted treatments in bleeding patients. We updated existing meta-analyses that have evaluated the clinical effectiveness of viscoelastic point-of-care tests vs the current standard of care for the management of cardiac surgery patients at risk of coagulopathic bleeding. Randomized controlled trials comparing viscoelastic point-of-care diagnostic testing with standard care in cardiac surgery patients were sought. All-cause mortality, blood loss, reoperation, blood transfusion, major morbidity, and intensive care unit and hospital length of stay were analysed using random-effects modelling. Fifteen trials that randomized a total of 8737 participants were included for the analysis. None of the trials was classified as low risk of bias. The use of thromboelastography- (TEG®) or thromboelastometry (ROTEM®)-guided algorithms did not reduce mortality [risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28-1.10] without heterogeneity (I2=1%), reoperation for bleeding, stroke, ventilation time, or hospital length of stay compared with standard care. Use of TEG® or ROTEM® resulted in reductions in the frequency of red blood cell (Risk Ratio 0.88, 95% Confidence Interval 0.79-0.97; I2=43%) and platelet transfusion (Risk Ratio 0.78, 95% Confidence Interval 0.66-0.93; I2=0%). Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) assessment demonstrated that the quality of the evidence was low or very low for all estimated outcomes. Routine use of viscoelastic point-of-care tests did not improve important clinical outcomes beyond transfusion in adults undergoing cardiac surgery.
黏弹特性即时检验常用于快速诊断凝血功能障碍,并为出血患者提供靶向治疗。我们更新了现有的meta 分析,评估了黏弹特性即时检验与当前心脏手术患者凝血功能障碍管理标准治疗相比的临床效果。我们寻找了比较心脏手术患者黏弹特性即时诊断检验与标准治疗的随机对照试验。使用随机效应模型分析全因死亡率、出血量、再次手术、输血、主要发病率以及重症监护病房和住院时间。纳入了 15 项共 8737 名参与者的随机试验进行分析。没有一项试验被归类为低偏倚风险。使用血栓弹力图(TEG®)或血栓弹力描记术(ROTEM®)指导的算法并没有降低死亡率[风险比(RR)0.55,95%置信区间(CI)0.28-1.10],且没有异质性(I2=1%),再次手术治疗出血、中风、通气时间或住院时间与标准治疗相比也没有减少。与标准治疗相比,使用 TEG®或 ROTEM®可减少红细胞输注的频率(风险比 0.88,95%置信区间 0.79-0.97;I2=43%)和血小板输注(风险比 0.78,95%置信区间 0.66-0.93;I2=0%)。组阅读评估和诊断评价(GRADE)评估表明,所有估计结果的证据质量均为低或极低。在接受心脏手术的成年人中,常规使用黏弹特性即时检验除了输血之外,并不能改善重要的临床结局。