Suppr超能文献

目标导向液体治疗与传统液体治疗在结直肠手术中的比较:一项随机对照试验的荟萃分析。

Goal-directed fluid therapy versus conventional fluid therapy in colorectal surgery: A meta analysis of randomized controlled trials.

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, Jangsu, China.

Department of Anesthesiology, Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, Jangsu, China.

出版信息

Int J Surg. 2018 Aug;56:264-273. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.06.034. Epub 2018 Jul 1.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effects of goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) versus conventional fluid therapy (CFT) in colorectal surgery on patients' postoperative outcome and to detect whether the results differ between studies with the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol and those without, between studies using different devices for GDFT, or between different surgical approaches (laparoscopy or laparotomy).

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Wanfang Data and ClinicalTrials.com were searched for studies from January,1990 to February, 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing both two abovementioned fluid therapy protocols in colorectal surgery were included. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality after surgery. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay (LOS), complication rate, ICU admission and gastrointestinal indicators.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included, including a total of 1281 patients: the GDFT group included 624 patients and the control group included 657 patients. No significant differences were found between groups in 30-day mortality (relative risk, RR 0.86,0.28 to 2.63, P = 0.79), LOS (weighted mean difference, WMD 0.22,-0.1 to 0.55, P = 0.18), and ICU admission (RR 0.42, 0.17 to 1.04, P = 0.06). However, the GDFT group had a lower complication rate (RR 0.84,0.71 to 0.99, P = 0.04). In subgroup analyses, time to first flatus and time to tolerate an oral diet were shorter in GDFT group than the control group in studies who did not use the ERAS protocol. No publication bias was identified according to Begg's test.

CONCLUSION

Compared with conventional fluid therapy, GDFT may not improve patients' postoperative outcome in colorectal surgery. However, the improvement of gastrointestinal function associated with GDFT over conventional fluid therapy was significant in the surgeries that did not use the ERAS protocol.

摘要

目的

本荟萃分析旨在比较目标导向液体治疗(GDFT)与常规液体治疗(CFT)在结直肠手术中对患者术后结局的影响,并检测在使用加速康复外科(ERAS)方案和不使用该方案的研究之间、在使用不同 GDFT 设备的研究之间以及在不同手术方式(腹腔镜或开腹手术)之间,结果是否存在差异。

方法

检索 Cochrane 图书馆、PubMed、Embase、万方数据和 ClinicalTrials.com 自 1990 年 1 月至 2018 年 2 月的研究。纳入比较结直肠手术中两种上述液体治疗方案的随机对照试验(RCT)。主要结局为术后 30 天死亡率。次要结局为住院时间(LOS)、并发症发生率、ICU 入院率和胃肠道指标。

结果

纳入 11 项研究,共纳入 1281 例患者:GDFT 组 624 例,对照组 657 例。两组间 30 天死亡率(相对危险度,RR 0.86,0.28 至 2.63,P=0.79)、LOS(加权均数差,WMD 0.22,-0.1 至 0.55,P=0.18)和 ICU 入院率(RR 0.42,0.17 至 1.04,P=0.06)均无显著差异。然而,GDFT 组的并发症发生率较低(RR 0.84,0.71 至 0.99,P=0.04)。亚组分析显示,在未使用 ERAS 方案的研究中,GDFT 组首次排气时间和耐受口服饮食时间均短于对照组。根据贝叶斯检验,未发现发表偏倚。

结论

与常规液体治疗相比,GDFT 可能不会改善结直肠手术患者的术后结局。然而,在未使用 ERAS 方案的手术中,与常规液体治疗相比,GDFT 可显著改善胃肠道功能。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验