Department of Critical Care, The 2(nd) Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, No. 246, Xuefu Road, Nangang District, Harbin, Heilongjiang Province, 150000, China.
Department of Pediatrics, The 1(ST) Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, No.2075, 7th Qunli Avenue, Daoli District, Harbin, Heilongjiang Province, 150001, China.
Aust Crit Care. 2021 May;34(3):278-286. doi: 10.1016/j.aucc.2020.07.013. Epub 2020 Oct 11.
The objective of the study was to compare nurse-led sedation protocols with physician-led usual care in intensive care units (ICUs) in treating mechanically ventilated adult patients.
This is a systematic review and meta-analysis.
PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and China Wanfang databases were interrogated for articles published before May 2020.
As per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and six preintervention and postintervention studies published in English and Chinese met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Two reviewers independently extracted data into a tabular format using predefined data fields. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The quality of the included RCTs and preintervention and postintervention studies was assessed using the Cochrane Quality Assessment Tool and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions assessment tool.
Eight RCTs were of intermediate methodological quality, and six preintervention and postintervention studies exhibited a low to moderate risk of bias. Compared with usual care, nurse-led sedation protocols resulted in significantly decreased durations of mechanical ventilation (days) (standardised mean difference = -1.765; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.461, -1.068); P < 0.001; I = 97.7%); decreased length of ICU stay (days) (standardised mean difference = -1.463; 95% CI = -2.181, -0.745; P < 0.001; I = 97.3%); reduced ICU mortality (relative risk [RR] = 0.854; 95% CI = 0.747, 0.983; P = 0.027), I = 0%); and decreased incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR = 0.438; 95% CI = 0.292, 0.657; P < 0.001; I = 41.4%), delirium (RR = 0.522; 95% CI = 0.338, 0.807; P = 0.003; I = 26.6%), and extubation failure (RR = 0.498; 95% CI = 0.266, 0.932; P = 0.029; I = 45.1%).
Although pre-post intervention study design cannot establish causality, the present findings raise the considerable possibility that a sedation protocol can be safely implemented by nurses to reduce mortality in ICUs and sedation-related adverse events in patients on mechanical ventilation compared with physician-led usual care.
本研究旨在比较 ICU 中护士主导的镇静方案与医师主导的常规护理在治疗机械通气成年患者方面的效果。
这是一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
检索了 PubMed、Cochrane 图书馆、EMBASE、CINAHL、中国知网和万方数据库,以获取截至 2020 年 5 月发表的文章。
根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目 (PRISMA) 指南,8 项随机对照试验 (RCT) 和 6 项预干预和后干预研究符合荟萃分析的纳入标准。两位评审员独立使用预定义的数据字段将数据提取到表格格式中。意见分歧通过协商解决。使用 Cochrane 质量评估工具和非随机干预研究的偏倚风险评估工具评估纳入的 RCT 和预干预和后干预研究的质量。
8 项 RCT 的方法学质量为中等,6 项预干预和后干预研究存在低至中度偏倚风险。与常规护理相比,护士主导的镇静方案可显著缩短机械通气时间 (天) (标准化均数差 = -1.765; 95%置信区间 [CI] = -2.461, -1.068); P < 0.001; I² = 97.7%); ICU 住院时间 (天) 缩短 (标准化均数差 = -1.463; 95% CI = -2.181, -0.745; P < 0.001; I² = 97.3%); ICU 死亡率降低 (相对风险 [RR] = 0.854; 95% CI = 0.747, 0.983; P = 0.027), I² = 0%);呼吸机相关性肺炎发生率降低 (RR = 0.438; 95% CI = 0.292, 0.657; P < 0.001; I² = 41.4%),谵妄 (RR = 0.522; 95% CI = 0.338, 0.807; P = 0.003; I² = 26.6%),以及拔管失败 (RR = 0.498; 95% CI = 0.266, 0.932; P = 0.029; I² = 45.1%)。
尽管预前后干预研究设计不能确定因果关系,但目前的研究结果表明,与医师主导的常规护理相比,镇静方案由护士安全实施可能会降低 ICU 死亡率和机械通气患者的镇静相关不良事件。