Suppr超能文献

布洛芬用于治疗早产或低体重(或两者兼具)婴儿的动脉导管未闭。

Ibuprofen for the treatment of patent ductus arteriosus in preterm or low birth weight (or both) infants.

作者信息

Ohlsson Arne, Walia Rajneesh, Shah Sachin S

机构信息

University of Toronto, Departments of Paediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Toronto, Canada.

University of Birmingham and Walsall Manor Hospital, Paediatrics/Neonatology, Walsall, West Midlands, UK, WS2 9PS.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Feb 11;2(2):CD003481. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003481.pub8.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Indomethacin is used as standard therapy to close a patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) but is associated with reduced blood flow to several organs. Ibuprofen, another cyclo-oxygenase inhibitor, may be as effective as indomethacin with fewer adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of ibuprofen compared with indomethacin, other cyclo-oxygenase inhibitor(s), placebo, or no intervention for closing a patent ductus arteriosus in preterm, low-birth-weight, or preterm and low-birth-weight infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 10), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 30 November 2017), Embase (1980 to 30 November 2017), and CINAHL (1982 to 30 November 2017). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of ibuprofen for the treatment of a PDA in preterm, low birth weight, or both preterm and low-birth-weight newborn infants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data collection and analysis conformed to the methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 39 studies enrolling 2843 infants. Ibuprofen (IV) versus placebo: IV Ibuprofen (3 doses) reduced the failure to close a PDA compared with placebo (typical relative risk (RR); 0.62 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.86); typical risk difference (RD); -0.18 (95% CI -0.30 to -0.06); NNTB 6 (95% CI 3 to 17); I = 65% for RR and I = 0% for RD; 2 studies, 206 infants; moderate-quality the evidence). One study reported decreased failure to close a PDA after single or three doses of oral ibuprofen compared with placebo (64 infants; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.62; RD -0.44, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.23; NNTB 2, 95% CI 2 to 4; I test not applicable). Ibuprofen (IV or oral) compared with indomethacin (IV or oral): Twenty-four studies (1590 infants) comparing ibuprofen (IV or oral) with indomethacin (IV or oral) found no significant differences in failure rates for PDA closure (typical RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.24; typical RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.06; I = 0% for both RR and RD; moderate-quality evidence). A reduction in NEC (necrotising enterocolitis) was noted in the ibuprofen (IV or oral) group (18 studies, 1292 infants; typical RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.94; typical RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.01; NNTB 25, 95% CI 14 to 100; I = 0% for both RR and RD; moderate-quality evidence). There was a statistically significant reduction in the proportion of infants with oliguria in the ibuprofen group (6 studies, 576 infants; typical RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.54; typical RD -0.09, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.05; NNTB 11, 95% CI 7 to 20; I = 24% for RR and I = 69% for RD; moderate-quality evidence). The serum/plasma creatinine levels 72 hours after initiation of treatment were statistically significantly lower in the ibuprofen group (11 studies, 918 infants; MD -8.12 µmol/L, 95% CI -10.81 to -5.43). For this comparison, there was high between-study heterogeneity (I = 83%) and low-quality evidence. Ibuprofen (oral) compared with indomethacin (IV or oral): Eight studies (272 infants) reported on failure rates for PDA closure in a subgroup of the above studies comparing oral ibuprofen with indomethacin (IV or oral). There was no significant difference between the groups (typical RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.27; typical RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.09; I = 0% for both RR and RD). The risk of NEC was reduced with oral ibuprofen compared with indomethacin (IV or oral) (7 studies, 249 infants; typical RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.73; typical RD -0.13, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.05; NNTB 8, 95% CI 5 to 20; I = 0% for both RR and RD). There was low-quality evidence for these two outcomes. There was a decreased risk of failure to close a PDA with oral ibuprofen compared with IV ibuprofen (5 studies, 406 infants; typical RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.56; typical RD -0.22, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.14; NNTB 5, 95% CI 3 to 7; moderate-quality evidence). There was a decreased risk of failure to close a PDA with high-dose versus standard-dose of IV ibuprofen (3 studies 190 infants; typical RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.61; typical RD - 0.26, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.15; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 7); I = 4% for RR and 0% for RD); moderate-quality evidence). Early versus expectant administration of IV ibuprofen, echocardiographically-guided IV ibuprofen treatment versus standard IV ibuprofen treatment, continuous infusion of ibuprofen versus intermittent boluses of ibuprofen, and rectal ibuprofen versus oral ibuprofen were studied in too few trials to allow for precise estimates of any clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Ibuprofen is as effective as indomethacin in closing a PDA. Ibuprofen reduces the risk of NEC and transient renal insufficiency. Therefore, of these two drugs, ibuprofen appears to be the drug of choice. The effectiveness of ibuprofen versus paracetamol is assessed in a separate review. Oro-gastric administration of ibuprofen appears as effective as IV administration. To make further recommendations, studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose ibuprofen, early versus expectant administration of ibuprofen, echocardiographically-guided versus standard IV ibuprofen, and continuous infusion versus intermittent boluses of ibuprofen. Studies are lacking evaluating the effect of ibuprofen on longer-term outcomes in infants with PDA.

摘要

背景

吲哚美辛被用作关闭动脉导管未闭(PDA)的标准疗法,但会导致多个器官的血流减少。布洛芬作为另一种环氧化酶抑制剂,可能与吲哚美辛效果相当且副作用更少。

目的

确定在早产、低出生体重或早产且低出生体重的婴儿中,与吲哚美辛、其他环氧化酶抑制剂、安慰剂或不干预措施相比,布洛芬关闭动脉导管未闭的有效性和安全性。

检索方法

我们采用Cochrane新生儿组标准检索策略,检索Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL 2017年第10期)、通过PubMed检索MEDLINE(1966年至2017年11月30日)、Embase(1980年至2017年11月30日)以及CINAHL(1982年至2017年11月30日)。我们检索了临床试验数据库、会议论文集以及检索到文章的参考文献列表,以查找随机对照试验和半随机试验。

选择标准

关于布洛芬治疗早产、低出生体重或早产且低出生体重新生儿动脉导管未闭的随机或半随机对照试验。

数据收集与分析

数据收集与分析符合Cochrane新生儿综述组的方法。我们采用GRADE方法评估证据质量。

主要结果

我们纳入了39项研究,共涉及2843名婴儿。布洛芬(静脉注射)与安慰剂对比:静脉注射布洛芬(3种剂量)与安慰剂相比,降低了动脉导管未闭未闭合的发生率(典型相对危险度(RR)为0.62(95%置信区间0.44至0.86);典型危险度差值(RD)为 -0.18(95%置信区间 -0.30至 -0.06);需治疗人数(NNTB)为6(95%置信区间3至17);RR的I² = 65%,RD的I² = 0%;2项研究,206名婴儿;中等质量证据)。一项研究报告称,与安慰剂相比,单次或三次口服布洛芬后动脉导管未闭未闭合发生率降低(64名婴儿;RR 0.26,95%置信区间0.11至0.62;RD -0.44,95%置信区间 -0.65至 -0.23;NNTB 2,95%置信区间2至4;I检验不适用)。布洛芬(静脉注射或口服)与吲哚美辛(静脉注射或口服)对比:24项研究(1590名婴儿)比较了布洛芬(静脉注射或口服)与吲哚美辛(静脉注射或口服),发现动脉导管未闭闭合失败率无显著差异(典型RR 1.07,95%置信区间0.92至1.24;典型RD 0.02,95%置信区间 -0.02至0.06;RR和RD的I²均为0%;中等质量证据)。布洛芬(静脉注射或口服)组坏死性小肠结肠炎(NEC)发生率降低(18项研究,1292名婴儿;典型RR 0.68,95%置信区间0.49至0.94;典型RD -0.04,95%置信区间 -0.07至 -0.01;NNTB 25,95%置信区间14至100;RR和RD的I²均为0%;中等质量证据)。布洛芬组少尿婴儿比例有统计学显著降低(6项研究,576名婴儿;典型RR 0.28,95%置信区间0.所14至0.54;典型RD -0.09,95%置信区间 -0.14至 -0.05;NNTB 11,95%置信区间7至20;RR的I² = 24%,RD的I² = 69%;中等质量证据)。治疗开始后72小时,布洛芬组血清/血浆肌酐水平有统计学显著降低(11项研究,918名婴儿;平均差值(MD) -8.12 µmol/L,95%置信区间 -10.81至 -5.43)。对于此比较,研究间异质性较高(I² = 83%)且证据质量较低。布洛芬(口服)与吲哚美辛(静脉注射或口服)对比:上述比较口服布洛芬与吲哚美辛(静脉注射或口服)的研究亚组中有8项研究(272名婴儿)报告了动脉导管未闭闭合失败率。两组间无显著差异(典型RR 0.96,95%置信区间0.73至1.27;典型RD -0.01,95%置信区间 -0.12至0.09;RR和RD的I²均为0%)。与吲哚美辛(静脉注射或口服)相比,口服布洛芬坏死性小肠结肠炎风险降低(7项研究,249名婴儿;典型RR 0.41,95%置信区间0.所23至0.73;典型RD -0.13,95%置信区间 -0.22至 -0.05;NNTB 8,95%置信区间5至20;RR和RD的I²均为0%)。这两个结果的证据质量较低。与静脉注射布洛芬相比,口服布洛芬动脉导管未闭未闭合风险降低(5项研究,406名婴儿;典型RR 0.38,95%置信区间0.所26至0.56;典型RD -0.22,95%置信区间 -0.31至 -0.14;NNTB 5,95%置信区间3至7;中等质量证据)。与标准剂量静脉注射布洛芬相比,高剂量静脉注射布洛芬动脉导管未闭未闭合风险降低(3项研究,190名婴儿;典型RR 0.37,95%置信区间0.所22至0.61;典型RD -0.26,95%置信区间 -0.38至 -0.15;NNTB 4,95%置信区间3至7;RR的I² = 由4%,RD的I² = 0%;中等质量证据)。关于静脉注射布洛芬早期与期待性给药、超声心动图引导下静脉注射布洛芬治疗与标准静脉注射布洛芬治疗、布洛芬持续输注与间歇性推注以及直肠布洛芬与口服布洛芬的研究,因试验数量过少,无法对任何临床结果进行精确估计。

作者结论

在关闭动脉导管未闭方面,布洛芬与吲哚美辛效果相当。布洛芬可降低坏死性小肠结肠炎和短暂性肾功能不全的风险。因此,在这两种药物中,布洛芬似乎是首选药物。布洛芬与对乙酰氨基酚有效性的比较在另一篇另一另一篇综述中进行评估。口服布洛芬似乎与静脉注射一样有效。为了提出进一步建议,需要开展研究评估高剂量与标准剂量布洛芬、布洛芬早期与期待性给药、超声心动图引导下与标准静脉注射布洛芬、布洛芬持续输注与间歇性推注的有效性。缺乏评估布洛芬对动脉导管未闭婴儿长期结局影响的研究。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

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