University of York, York, YO10 5DD, England.
BMC Pediatr. 2019 Jan 7;19(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s12887-018-1387-1.
Extravasation injuries are caused by unintended leakages of fluids or medicines from intravenous lines but there is no consensus on the best treatment approaches, particularly in infants and young children.
This paper presents a more succinct account of a study of treatments for extravasation injuries in infants and children which has also been reported in full as an NIHR HTA report. A systematic scoping review and survey of UK NHS practice were undertaken. Twelve databases - including MEDLINE and EMBASE - were searched for relevant studies in February 2017. Studies of children with extravasation injuries receiving any treatment for extravasation injury were eligible, providing they reported one of the following outcomes: wound healing time, infection, pain, scarring, functional impairment, and requirement for surgery. Studies were screened in duplicate. Data were extracted by one researcher and checked by another. Studies were summarised narratively. An online questionnaire was distributed to NHS staff at neonatal units, paediatric intensive care units and principal oncology/haematology units.
The evidence identified in the scoping review was mostly comprised of small, retrospective, uncontrolled group studies or case reports. The studies covered a wide range of interventions including conservative management approaches, saline flush-out techniques (with or without prior hyaluronidase), hyaluronidase without flush-out, artificial skin treatments, debridement and plastic surgery. Few studies graded injury severity and the results sections and outcomes reported in most studies were limited. There was heterogeneity across study populations in many factors. The survey yielded 63 responses from hospital units across the UK. Results indicated that although most units had written documentation for treating extravasation injuries, only one-third of documents included a system for grading injury severity. The most frequently used interventions were elevation of the affected area and analgesics. Saline wash-out treatments, either with or without hyaluronidase, were regularly used in about half of all neonatal units. Most responders thought a randomised controlled trial might be a viable future research design.
There is some uncertainty about which are most the promising treatments for extravasation injuries in infants and young children. Saline flush-out techniques and conservative management approaches are commonly used and may be suitable for evaluation in trials. Although conventional randomised trials may be difficult to perform a randomised registry trial may be an appropriate alternative design.
输液外渗伤是由于静脉内的液体或药物意外渗漏引起的,但目前对于最佳治疗方法尚无共识,尤其是在婴儿和幼儿中。
本文更简洁地介绍了一项关于婴儿和儿童输液外渗伤治疗的研究,该研究也作为一项英国国家卫生与保健优化研究所卫生技术评估报告进行了全面报告。我们进行了系统的范围界定综述和对英国国民保健制度实践的调查。2017 年 2 月,我们在 12 个数据库(包括 MEDLINE 和 EMBASE)中搜索了相关研究。符合纳入标准的研究为:接受任何输液外渗伤治疗的输液外渗伤患儿,且报告了以下结果之一:伤口愈合时间、感染、疼痛、瘢痕形成、功能障碍和手术需求。研究进行了重复筛选。由一名研究人员提取数据,另一名研究人员进行核对。研究结果以叙述性方式进行总结。我们向新生儿病房、儿科重症监护病房和主要肿瘤/血液病房的英国国民保健制度工作人员发放了在线问卷。
范围界定综述中确定的证据主要由小型回顾性非对照性组研究或病例报告组成。这些研究涵盖了广泛的干预措施,包括保守治疗方法、盐水冲洗技术(有或没有先前透明质酸酶)、无冲洗透明质酸酶、人造皮肤治疗、清创术和整形手术。很少有研究对损伤严重程度进行分级,并且大多数研究的结果部分和报告的结果都很有限。许多研究人群的因素存在异质性。调查共收到来自英国各地医院的 63 份回复。结果表明,尽管大多数科室都有治疗输液外渗伤的书面记录,但只有三分之一的文件包括损伤严重程度分级系统。最常使用的干预措施是抬高受影响的区域和使用镇痛药。在大约一半的新生儿病房中,经常使用盐水冲洗治疗,无论是否使用透明质酸酶。大多数应答者认为,随机对照试验可能是一种可行的未来研究设计。
对于婴儿和幼儿的输液外渗伤,哪种治疗方法最有希望尚不确定。盐水冲洗技术和保守治疗方法通常用于治疗输液外渗伤,并且可能适合在试验中进行评估。虽然常规随机试验可能难以进行,但随机登记试验可能是一种合适的替代设计。