Suppr超能文献

干预措施在自发性气胸初始管理中的比较效果:系统评价和贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。

Comparative Effectiveness of Interventions in Initial Management of Spontaneous Pneumothorax: A Systematic Review and a Bayesian Network Meta-analysis.

机构信息

Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH.

Department of Hospital Medicine, Mercy Health, Muskegon, MI.

出版信息

Ann Emerg Med. 2020 Jul;76(1):88-102. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2020.01.009. Epub 2020 Feb 27.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The best initial strategy for nontension symptomatic spontaneous pneumothorax is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the most efficacious, safe, and efficient initial intervention in adults with nontension spontaneous pneumothorax.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from January 1950 through December 2019 (print and electronic publications). Randomized controlled trials evaluating needle aspiration, narrow-bore chest tube (<14 F) with or without Heimlich valve insertion, and large-bore chest tube (≥14 F) insertion in spontaneous pneumothorax were included. Network meta-analyses were performed with a Bayesian random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included in this review (n=781 patients). Analyses of efficacy (n=12 trials) revealed no significant differences between the interventions studied: narrow- versus large-bore chest tubes, odds ratio (OR) 1.05 (95% credible interval [CrI] 0.38 to 2.87); large-bore chest tube versus needle aspiration, OR 1.25 (95% CrI 0.65 to 2.62); and narrow-bore chest tube versus needle aspiration, OR 1.32 (95% CrI 0.54 to 3.42). Analyses of safety (n=10 trials) revealed a significant difference between needle aspiration and large-bore chest tube interventions: OR 0.10 (95% CrI 0.03 to 0.40). No differences were observed in needle aspiration versus narrow-bore chest tube (OR 0.29 [95% CrI 0.05 to 1.82]), and narrow- versus large-bore chest tube comparisons (OR 0.35 [95% CrI 0.07 to 1.67]). Analyses of efficiency were not pursued because of variation in reporting the length of stay (n=12 trials). Narrow-bore chest tube (<14 F) had the highest likelihood of top ranking in terms of immediate success (surface under the cumulative ranking curve=64%). Needle aspiration had the highest likelihood of top ranking in terms of safety (surface under the cumulative ranking curve=95.8%).

CONCLUSION

In the initial management of nontension spontaneous pneumothorax, the optimal strategy between the choices of a narrow-bore chest tube (<14 F, top ranked in efficacy) and needle aspiration (top ranked in safety) is unclear. Complications were more common in large-bore chest tube (≥14 F, including 14-F tube) insertions compared with needle aspiration.

摘要

研究目的

非张力性症状性自发性气胸的最佳初始治疗策略尚不清楚。我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以确定非张力性自发性气胸成人患者最有效、安全和有效的初始干预措施。

方法

从 1950 年 1 月至 2019 年 12 月(印刷和电子出版物),检索 MEDLINE、Scopus、Web of Science 和 ClinicalTrials.gov。纳入评估针吸术、<14F 窄管胸管(带或不带海姆利希阀)和≥14F 大口径胸管置入治疗自发性气胸的随机对照试验。采用贝叶斯随机效应模型进行网络荟萃分析。

结果

本综述纳入了 12 项研究(n=781 例患者)。疗效分析(n=12 项试验)显示,所研究的干预措施之间无显著差异:窄管与大管胸管比较,比值比(OR)1.05(95%可信区间[CrI]0.38 至 2.87);大管胸管与针吸术比较,OR 1.25(95%CrI 0.65 至 2.62);窄管胸管与针吸术比较,OR 1.32(95%CrI 0.54 至 3.42)。安全性分析(n=10 项试验)显示,针吸术与大口径胸管干预措施之间存在显著差异:OR 0.10(95%CrI 0.03 至 0.40)。针吸术与窄管胸管(OR 0.29 [95%CrI 0.05 至 1.82])和窄管与大管胸管比较(OR 0.35 [95%CrI 0.07 至 1.67])无差异。由于报道的住院时间存在差异(n=12 项试验),因此未进行效率分析。在即刻成功率方面(累积排序曲线下面积=64%),<14F 的窄管胸管(排名最高)最有可能成为首选。在安全性方面(累积排序曲线下面积=95.8%),针吸术最有可能排名靠前。

结论

在非张力性自发性气胸的初始治疗中,窄管胸管(<14F,疗效最佳)和针吸术(安全性最佳)之间的最佳策略尚不清楚。与针吸术相比,大口径胸管(≥14F,包括 14F 管)置入的并发症更为常见。

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