Cronhjort Maria, Wall Olof, Nyberg Erik, Zeng Ruifeng, Svensen Christer, Mårtensson Johan, Joelsson-Alm Eva
Department of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Unit of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden.
J Clin Monit Comput. 2018 Jun;32(3):403-414. doi: 10.1007/s10877-017-0032-0. Epub 2017 Jun 8.
The effect of hemodynamic optimization in critically ill patients has been challenged in recent years. The aim of the meta-analysis was to evaluate if a protocolized intervention based on the result of hemodynamic monitoring reduces mortality in critically ill patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The study was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42015019539). Randomized controlled trials published in English, reporting studies on adult patients treated in an intensive care unit, emergency department or equivalent level of care were included. Interventions had to be protocolized and based on results from hemodynamic measurements, defined as cardiac output, stroke volume, stroke volume variation, oxygen delivery, and central venous-or mixed venous oxygenation. The control group had to be treated without any structured intervention based on the parameters mentioned above, however, monitoring by central venous pressure measurements was allowed. Out of 998 screened papers, thirteen met the inclusion criteria. A total of 3323 patients were enrolled in the six trials with low risk of bias (ROB). The mortality was 22.4% (374/1671 patients) in the intervention group and 22.9% (378/1652 patients) in the control group, OR 0.94 with a 95% CI of 0.73-1.22. We found no statistically significant reduction in mortality from hemodynamic optimization using hemodynamic monitoring in combination with a structured algorithm. The number of high quality trials evaluating the effect of protocolized hemodynamic management directed towards a meaningful treatment goal in critically ill patients in comparison to standard of care treatment is too low to prove or exclude a reduction in mortality.
近年来,血流动力学优化对危重症患者的影响受到了挑战。本荟萃分析的目的是评估基于血流动力学监测结果的规范化干预措施是否能降低危重症患者的死亡率。我们根据《Cochrane系统评价干预措施手册》进行了系统评价和荟萃分析。该研究已在PROSPERO数据库(CRD42015019539)中注册。纳入了以英文发表的随机对照试验,这些试验报告了在重症监护病房、急诊科或同等护理水平接受治疗的成年患者的研究。干预措施必须是规范化的,且基于血流动力学测量结果,血流动力学测量结果定义为心输出量、每搏输出量、每搏输出量变异度、氧输送以及中心静脉血氧饱和度或混合静脉血氧饱和度。对照组必须在不基于上述参数进行任何结构化干预的情况下接受治疗,不过,允许通过中心静脉压测量进行监测。在998篇筛选出的论文中,有13篇符合纳入标准。六项偏倚风险较低(ROB)的试验共纳入了3323例患者。干预组的死亡率为22.4%(1671例患者中的374例),对照组的死亡率为22.9%(1652例患者中的378例),比值比为0.94,95%置信区间为0.73 - 1.22。我们发现,使用血流动力学监测结合结构化算法进行血流动力学优化,并未使死亡率有统计学意义的降低。与标准治疗相比,评估针对危重症患者有意义治疗目标开展规范化血流动力学管理效果的高质量试验数量过少,无法证实或排除死亡率的降低。