Snow Timothy A C, Littlewood Shona, Corredor Carlos, Singer Mervyn, Arulkumaran Nishkantha
Bloomsbury Institute of Intensive Care Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom,
St George's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Blood Purif. 2021;50(4-5):462-472. doi: 10.1159/000510982. Epub 2020 Oct 28.
The objective of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine whether mortality benefit exists for extracorporeal blood purification techniques in sepsis.
A systematic search on MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for RCTs was performed.
RCTs investigating the effect of extracorporeal blood purification device use on mortality among critically ill septic patients were selected.
Mortality was assessed using Mantel-Haenszel models, and I2 was used for heterogeneity. Data are presented as odds ratios (OR); 95% confidence intervals (CIs); p values; I2. Using the control event mortality proportion, we performed a TSA and calculated the required information size using an anticipated intervention effect of a 14% relative reduction in mortality.
Thirty-nine RCTs were identified, with 2,729 patients. Fourteen studies used hemofiltration (n = 789), 17 used endotoxin adsorption devices (n = 1,363), 3 used nonspecific adsorption (n = 110), 2 were cytokine removal devices (n = 117), 2 used coupled plasma filtration adsorption (CPFA) (n = 207), 2 combined hemofiltration and perfusion (n = 40), and 1 used plasma exchange (n = 106). On conventional meta-analysis, hemofiltration (OR 0.56 [0.40-0.79]; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), endotoxin removal devices (OR 0.40 [0.23-0.67], p < 0.001; I2 = 71%), and nonspecific adsorption devices (OR 0.32 [0.13-0.82]; p = 0.02; I2 = 23%) were associated with mortality benefit, but not cytokine removal (OR 0.99 [0.07-13.42], p = 0.99; I2 = 64%), CPFA (OR 0.50 [0.10-2.47]; p = 0.40; I2 = 64%), or combined hemofiltration and adsorption (OR 0.71 [0.13-3.79]; p = 0.69; I2 = 0%). TSA however revealed that based on the number of existing patients recruited for RCTs, neither hemofiltration (TSA-adjusted CI 0.29-1.10), endotoxin removal devices (CI 0.05-3.40), nor nonspecific adsorption devices (CI 0.01-14.31) were associated with mortality benefit.
There are inadequate data at present to conclude that the use of extracorporeal blood purification techniques in sepsis is beneficial. Further adequately powered RCTs are required to confirm any potential mortality benefit, which may be most evident in patients at greatest risk of death.
本研究的目的是对已发表的随机对照试验(RCT)进行荟萃分析和试验序贯分析(TSA),以确定体外血液净化技术在脓毒症中是否具有降低死亡率的益处。
对MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库进行系统检索,以查找RCT。
选择调查体外血液净化设备使用对重症脓毒症患者死亡率影响的RCT。
使用Mantel-Haenszel模型评估死亡率,并使用I²评估异质性。数据以比值比(OR)、95%置信区间(CI)、p值、I²表示。利用对照事件死亡率比例,我们进行了TSA,并使用预期的14%死亡率相对降低的干预效果计算所需信息量。
共识别出39项RCT,涉及2729例患者。14项研究使用血液滤过(n = 789),17项使用内毒素吸附装置(n = 1363),3项使用非特异性吸附(n = 110),2项使用细胞因子清除装置(n = 117),2项使用配对血浆滤过吸附(CPFA)(n = 207),2项联合血液滤过和灌注(n = 40),1项使用血浆置换(n = 106)。在传统荟萃分析中,血液滤过(OR 0.56 [0.40 - 0.79];p < 0.001;I² = 0%)、内毒素清除装置(OR 0.40 [0.23 - 0.67],p < 0.001;I² = 71%)和非特异性吸附装置(OR 0.32 [0.13 - 0.82];p = 0.02;I² = 23%)与死亡率降低益处相关,但细胞因子清除装置(OR 0.99 [0.07 - 13.42],p = 0.99;I² = 64%)、CPFA(OR 0.50 [0.10 - 2.47];p = 0.40;I² = 64%)或联合血液滤过和吸附(OR 0.71 [0.13 - 3.79];p = 0.69;I² = 0%)并非如此。然而,TSA显示,基于现有RCT招募的患者数量,血液滤过(TSA调整后的CI 0.29 - 1.10)、内毒素清除装置(CI 0.05 - 3.40)或非特异性吸附装置(CI 0.01 - 14.31)均与死亡率降低益处无关。
目前尚无足够数据得出脓毒症中使用体外血液净化技术有益的结论。需要进一步开展有足够效力的RCT来确认任何潜在的死亡率降低益处,这在死亡风险最高的患者中可能最为明显。