Blanchard I E, Ahmad A, Tang K L, Ronksley P E, Lorenzetti D, Lazarenko G, Lang E S, Doig C J, Stelfox H T
Alberta Health Services, Emergency Medical Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
University of Calgary, Cumming School of Medicine, Department of Critical Care, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
BMC Emerg Med. 2017 Nov 28;17(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s12873-017-0146-1.
The optimal prehospital fluid for the treatment of hypotension is unknown. Hypertonic fluids may increase circulatory volume and mute the pro-inflammatory response of the body to injury and illness. The purpose of this systematic review is to determine whether in patients presenting with hypotension in the prehospital setting (population), the administration of hypertonic saline (intervention), compared to an isotonic fluid (control), improves survival to hospital discharge (outcome).
Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL from the date of database inception to November, 2016, and included all languages. Two reviewers independently selected randomized control trials of hypotensive human participants administered hypertonic saline in the prehospital setting. The comparison was isotonic fluid, which included normal saline, and near isotonic fluids such as Ringer's Lactate. Assessment of study quality was done using the Cochrane Collaborations' risk of bias tool and a fixed effect meta-analysis was conducted to determine the pooled relative risk of survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes were reported for fluid requirements, multi-organ failure, adverse events, length of hospital stay, long term survival and disability.
Of the 1160 non-duplicate citations screened, thirty-eight articles underwent full-text review, and five trials were included in the systematic review. All studies administered a fixed 250 ml dose of 7.5% hypertonic saline, except one that administered 300 ml. Two studies used normal saline, two Ringer's Lactate, and one Ringer's Acetate as control. Routine care co-interventions included isotonic fluids and colloids. Five studies were included in the meta-analysis (n = 1162 injured patients) with minimal statistical heterogeneity (I = 0%). The pooled relative risk of survival to hospital discharge with hypertonic saline was 1.02 times that of patients who received isotonic fluids (95% Confidence Interval: 0.95, 1.10). There were no consistent statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes.
There was no significant difference in important clinical outcomes for hypotensive injured patients administered hypertonic saline compared to isotonic fluid in the prehospital setting. Hypertonic saline cannot be recommended for use in prehospital clinical practice for the management of hypotensive injured patients based on the available data. PROSPERO registration # CRD42016053385 .
用于治疗低血压的最佳院前补液尚不清楚。高渗液可能会增加循环血容量,并减轻机体对损伤和疾病的促炎反应。本系统评价的目的是确定在院前环境中出现低血压的患者(人群)中,与等渗液(对照)相比,给予高渗盐水(干预)是否能提高出院生存率(结局)。
从数据库建立之日至2016年11月,在Medline、Embase、CINAHL和CENTRAL中进行检索,包括所有语言。两名评价者独立选择在院前环境中给予高渗盐水的低血压人类参与者的随机对照试验。对照为等渗液,包括生理盐水和近似等渗液如乳酸林格氏液。使用Cochrane协作网的偏倚风险工具对研究质量进行评估,并进行固定效应荟萃分析以确定出院生存的合并相对风险。报告了关于液体需求量、多器官功能衰竭、不良事件、住院时间、长期生存和残疾的次要结局。
在筛选的1160条非重复文献中,38篇文章进行了全文审查,5项试验纳入了系统评价。除一项给予300 ml外,所有研究均给予固定剂量250 ml的7.5%高渗盐水。两项研究使用生理盐水,两项使用乳酸林格氏液,一项使用醋酸林格氏液作为对照。常规护理联合干预措施包括等渗液和胶体液。5项研究纳入荟萃分析(n = 1162例受伤患者),统计异质性极小(I² = 0%)。高渗盐水组出院生存的合并相对风险是接受等渗液患者的1.02倍(95%置信区间:0.95,1.10)。次要结局方面没有一致的统计学显著差异。
在院前环境中,与等渗液相比,给予高渗盐水的低血压受伤患者在重要临床结局方面没有显著差异。根据现有数据,不推荐在院前临床实践中使用高渗盐水来处理低血压受伤患者。国际前瞻性系统评价注册库编号# CRD42016053385 。