Lewis Sharon R, Baker Philip E, Andrews Peter Jd, Cheng Andrew, Deol Kiran, Hammond Naomi, Saxena Manoj
Lancaster Patient Safety Research Unit, Royal Lancaster Infirmary, Lancaster, UK.
Academic Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 31;10(10):CD006811. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006811.pub4.
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of death and disability, with an estimated 5.5 million people experiencing severe TBI worldwide every year. Observational clinical studies of people with TBI suggest an association between raised body temperature and unfavourable outcome, although this relationship is inconsistent. Additionally, preclinical models suggest that reducing temperature to 35 °C to 37.5 °C improves biochemical and histopathological outcomes compared to reducing temperature to a lower threshold of 33 °C to 35 °C. It is unknown whether reducing body temperature to 35 °C to 37.5 °C in people admitted to hospital with TBI is beneficial, has no effect, or causes harm. This is an update of a review last published in 2014.
To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions or physical interventions given with the intention of reducing body temperature to 35 °C to 37.5 °C in adults and children admitted to hospital after TBI.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed on 28 November 2019. We searched clinical trials registers, grey literature and references lists of reviews, and we carried out forward citation searches of included studies.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with participants of any age admitted to hospital following TBI. We included interventions that aimed to reduce body temperature to 35 °C to 37.5 °C: these included pharmacological interventions (such as paracetamol, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), or physical interventions (such as surface cooling devices, bedside fans, or cooled intravenous fluids). Eligible comparators were placebo or usual care.
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence with GRADE.
We included one RCT with 41 participants. This study recruited adult participants admitted to two intensive care units in Australia, and evaluated a pharmacological intervention. Researchers gave participants 1 g paracetamol or a placebo intravenously at four-hourly intervals for 72 hours. We could not be certain whether intravenous paracetamol influenced mortality at 28 days (risk ratio 2.86, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 25.24). We judged the evidence for this outcome to be very low certainty, meaning we have very little confidence in this effect estimate, and the true result may be substantially different to this effect. We downgraded the certainty for imprecision (because the evidence was from a single study with very few participants), and study limitations (because we noted a high risk of selective reporting bias). This study was otherwise at low risk of bias. The included study did not report the primary outcome for this review, which was the number of people with a poor outcome at the end of follow-up (defined as death or dependency, as measured on a scale such as the Glasgow Outcome Score), or any of our secondary outcomes, which included the number of people with further intracranial haemorrhage, extracranial haemorrhage, abnormal intracranial pressure, or pneumonia or other serious infections. The only other completed trial that we found was of a physical intervention that compared advanced fever control (using a surface cooling device) versus conventional fever control in 12 participants. The trial was published as an abstract only, with insufficient details to allow inclusion, so we have added this to the 'studies awaiting classification' section, pending further information from the study authors or publication of the full study report. We identified four ongoing studies that will contribute evidence to future updates of the review if they measure relevant outcomes and, in studies with a mixed population, report data separately for participants with TBI.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: One small study contributed very low-certainty evidence for mortality to this review. The uncertainty is largely driven by limited research into reduction of body temperature to 35 °C to 37.5 °C in people with TBI. Further research that evaluates pharmacological or physical interventions, or both, may increase certainty in this field. We propose that future updates of the review, and ongoing and future research in this field, incorporate outcomes that are important to the people receiving the interventions, including side effects of any pharmacological agent (e.g. nausea or vomiting), and discomfort caused by physical therapies.
创伤性脑损伤(TBI)是死亡和残疾的主要原因,据估计全球每年有550万人遭受重度TBI。对TBI患者的观察性临床研究表明体温升高与不良预后之间存在关联,尽管这种关系并不一致。此外,临床前模型表明,与将体温降至33°C至35°C的较低阈值相比,将体温降至35°C至37.5°C可改善生化和组织病理学结果。对于因TBI入院的患者,将体温降至35°C至37.5°C是否有益、无效或有害尚不清楚。这是对2014年发表的一篇综述的更新。
评估对TBI后入院的成人和儿童进行旨在将体温降至35°C至37.5°C的药物干预或物理干预的效果。
我们于2019年11月28日检索了Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、Embase、科学引文索引和PubMed。我们检索了临床试验注册库、灰色文献以及综述的参考文献列表,并对纳入研究进行了向前引用检索。
我们纳入了TBI后入院的任何年龄参与者的随机对照试验(RCT)。我们纳入了旨在将体温降至35°C至37.5°C的干预措施:这些措施包括药物干预(如对乙酰氨基酚或非甾体类抗炎药)或物理干预(如表面冷却装置、床边风扇或冷却的静脉输液)。合适的对照为安慰剂或常规护理。
两位综述作者独立评估研究是否纳入、提取数据并评估偏倚风险。我们使用GRADE评估证据的确定性。
我们纳入了一项有41名参与者的RCT。该研究招募了澳大利亚两家重症监护病房的成年参与者,并评估了一种药物干预。研究人员每4小时给参与者静脉注射1g对乙酰氨基酚或安慰剂,共72小时。我们无法确定静脉注射对乙酰氨基酚是否会影响28天的死亡率(风险比2.86,95%置信区间0.32至25.24)。我们判断该结果的证据确定性非常低,这意味着我们对该效应估计几乎没有信心,真实结果可能与该效应有很大差异。我们因不精确性(因为证据来自一项参与者很少的单一研究)和研究局限性(因为我们注意到选择性报告偏倚的高风险)而降低了确定性。该研究在其他方面偏倚风险较低。纳入的研究未报告本综述的主要结局,即随访结束时预后不良的人数(定义为死亡或依赖,如通过格拉斯哥预后评分等量表测量),也未报告我们的任何次要结局,包括进一步发生颅内出血、颅外出血、颅内压异常或肺炎或其他严重感染的人数。我们找到的另一项完成的试验是一项物理干预试验,比较了12名参与者的高级发热控制(使用表面冷却装置)与传统发热控制。该试验仅以摘要形式发表,细节不足无法纳入,因此我们已将其添加到“等待分类的研究”部分,以待研究作者提供更多信息或完整研究报告发表。我们确定了四项正在进行的研究,如果它们测量相关结局,并且在混合人群的研究中分别报告TBI参与者的数据,将为该综述的未来更新提供证据。
一项小型研究为本综述提供了关于死亡率的确定性极低的证据。不确定性主要是由于对TBI患者将体温降至35°C至37.5°C的研究有限。评估药物干预或物理干预或两者的进一步研究可能会提高该领域的确定性。我们建议该综述的未来更新以及该领域正在进行和未来的研究纳入对接受干预的人群重要的结局,包括任何药物的副作用(如恶心或呕吐)以及物理治疗引起的不适。