Suppr超能文献

右美托咪定与咪达唑仑在接受术后机械通气患者中的谵妄风险:一项荟萃分析。

Delirium Risk of Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam in Patients Treated with Postoperative Mechanical Ventilation: a Meta-analysis.

作者信息

Peng Wang, Shimin Shan, Hongli Wang, Yanli Zhang, Ying Zhang

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, 5th Central Hospital of Tianjin, Peking University BinHai Hospital300450TianjinChina.

出版信息

Open Med (Wars). 2017 Aug 10;12:252-256. doi: 10.1515/med-2017-0036. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate by meta-analysis the effects of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam on postoperative delirium in patients that received postoperative mechanical ventilation.

METHODS

The electronic databases of PubMed, Web of Science, EMbase, CNKI, CBM, Cochrane library and WanFang were searched by two reviewers. All the clinical studies related to dexmedetomidine versus midazolam on postoperative delirium were screened and collected in this meta-analysis. The combined postoperative delirium risk between dexmedetomidine and midazolam groups was pooled by random effect model. The publication bias was assessed by Begg's funnel plot and Egger's line regression test.

RESULTS

A total of six studies including 386 subjects (202 in the dexmedetomidine group and 184 in the midazolam group) were finally included in this meta-analysis. All six studies reported adequate sequence generation. Three studies used blindness methods and 2 publications were free of selective reporting. However, only 1 publication reported allocation concealment. Because of significant heterogeneity across the studies (I=61.7%, p<0.05), the data were pooled by random effect model. Pooled data showed the postoperative delirium risk in the dexmedetomidine group was significantly lower than that of the midazolam group (RR=0.20 (095%CI:0.09~0.47, p<0.05)).The Begg's funnel plot showed obvious asymmetry at the bottom and Egger's line regression test also indicated significant publication bias (t=-6.51, p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with midazolam, patients that received dexmedetomidine for postoperative mechanical ventilation sedation had less risk of developing delirium.

摘要

目的

通过荟萃分析评估右美托咪定与咪达唑仑对接受术后机械通气患者术后谵妄的影响。

方法

由两名研究者检索PubMed、Web of Science、EMbase、CNKI、CBM、Cochrane图书馆和万方的电子数据库。筛选并收集本次荟萃分析中所有关于右美托咪定与咪达唑仑对术后谵妄影响的临床研究。采用随机效应模型汇总右美托咪定组和咪达唑仑组术后谵妄的合并风险。通过Begg漏斗图和Egger线性回归检验评估发表偏倚。

结果

本次荟萃分析最终纳入6项研究,共386例受试者(右美托咪定组202例,咪达唑仑组184例)。所有6项研究均报告了充分的序列生成。3项研究采用了盲法,2篇文献无选择性报告。然而,只有1篇文献报告了分配隐藏。由于各研究间存在显著异质性(I=61.7%,p<0.05),故采用随机效应模型汇总数据。汇总数据显示,右美托咪定组术后谵妄风险显著低于咪达唑仑组(RR=0.20(95%CI:0.09~0.47,p<0.05))。Begg漏斗图底部显示明显不对称,Egger线性回归检验也表明存在显著的发表偏倚(t=-6.51,p<0.05)。

结论

与咪达唑仑相比,接受右美托咪定进行术后机械通气镇静的患者发生谵妄的风险更低。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ca0f/5553133/81d5127641c1/med-12-252-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验