Farina M L, Bonati M, Iapichino G, Pesenti A, Procaccio F, Boselli L, Langer M, Graziina A, Tognoni G
Laboratory of Clinical Pharmacology, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan.
Drugs. 1987 Dec;34(6):662-94. doi: 10.2165/00003495-198734060-00003.
The application of clinical pharmacological concepts and therapeutic standards in intensive care settings presents particularly difficult problems due to the lack of adequately controlled background information and the highly variable and rapidly evolving clinical conditions where drugs must be administered and their impact evaluated. In this review, an attempt has been made to discuss the available knowledge within the framework of a problem-oriented approach, which appears to provide a more clinically useful insight than a drug-centred review. Following a brief discussion of the scanty data and the most interesting models to which reference can be made from a pharmacokinetic point of view (the burn patient being taken as an example), the review concentrates on the main general intervention strategies in intensive care patients. These are based mainly on non-pharmacological measures (correction of fluid and electrolyte balance, total parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, oxygenation and ventilatory management) and are discussed with respect to the specific challenge they present in various clinical conditions and organ failure situations. In addition, 4 major selected clinical conditions where general management criteria and careful use of prophylactic and therapeutic drug treatments must interact to cope with the variety of presentations and problems are reviewed. These include: acute cerebral damage; anti-infective prophylaxis and therapy; cardiovascular emergencies; and problems of haemostasis. Each problem is analysed in such a way as to frame the pharmacological intervention in its broader context of the underlying (established or hypothesised) pathophysiology, with special attention being paid to those methodological issues which allow an appreciation of the degree of reliability of the data and the recommendations which appear to be practiced (often haphazardly) in intensive care units. The thorough review of the published literature provided (up to mid-1986) clearly shows that in this field the quality of randomised controlled and epidemiological studies is rather unsatisfactory. It would be highly beneficial to research and to clinical care if larger multicentric protocols and prospective epidemiological comparative investigations could be carried out to investigate more timely and adequately the variables which determine drug action, and the final outcome in the many subgroups of patients which must be considered in a proper stratification of intensive care unit populations.
由于缺乏充分对照的背景信息,以及药物必须施用且其影响需评估的临床状况高度可变且迅速演变,临床药理学概念和治疗标准在重症监护环境中的应用存在特别困难的问题。在本综述中,已尝试在以问题为导向的方法框架内讨论现有知识,这种方法似乎比以药物为中心的综述提供更具临床实用性的见解。在简要讨论了稀缺数据以及从药代动力学角度可参考的最有趣模型(以烧伤患者为例)之后,本综述集中于重症监护患者的主要一般干预策略。这些策略主要基于非药物措施(纠正液体和电解质平衡、全胃肠外营养、肠内营养、氧合和通气管理),并针对它们在各种临床状况和器官衰竭情况下所呈现的具体挑战进行讨论。此外,还综述了4种主要的选定临床状况,在这些状况中,一般管理标准与谨慎使用预防性和治疗性药物治疗必须相互作用,以应对各种表现和问题。这些状况包括:急性脑损伤;抗感染预防和治疗;心血管急症;以及止血问题。对每个问题进行分析,以便将药理学干预置于其更广泛的潜在(既定或假设)病理生理学背景中,特别关注那些有助于评估数据可靠性程度的方法学问题,以及重症监护病房中似乎(通常是随意地)实行的建议。对截至1986年年中发表的文献进行的全面综述清楚地表明,在该领域,随机对照和流行病学研究的质量相当不尽人意。如果能够开展更大规模的多中心方案和前瞻性流行病学比较研究,以便更及时、充分地研究决定药物作用的变量以及在重症监护病房患者适当分层中必须考虑的许多亚组患者的最终结局,那么对研究和临床护理将大有裨益。