Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Hyperbaric, Allergy, and Sleep Medicine, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, USA.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, USA.
J Intensive Care Med. 2022 May;37(5):611-617. doi: 10.1177/08850666211019713. Epub 2021 Jun 2.
Fluid therapy plays a major role in the management of critically ill patients. Yet assessment of intravascular volume in these patients is challenging. Different invasive and non-invasive methods have been used with variable results. The passive leg raise (PLR) maneuver has been recommended by international guidelines as a means to determine appropriate fluid resuscitation. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine if using this method of volume assessment has an impact on mortality outcome in patients with septic shock.
This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched available data in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception until October 2020 for prospective, randomized, controlled trials that compared PLR-guided fluid resuscitation to standard care in adult patients with septic shock. Our primary outcome was mortality at the longest duration of follow-up.
We screened 1,425 article titles and abstracts. Of the 23 full-text articles reviewed, 5 studies with 462 patients met our eligibility criteria. Odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for mortality at the longest reported time interval were calculated for each study. Using random effects modeling, the pooled OR (95% CI) for mortality with a PLR-guided resuscitation strategy was 0.82 (0.52 -1.30). The included studies were not blinded and they ranged from having low to high risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
Our analysis showed there was no statistically significant difference in mortality among septic shock patients treated with PLR-guided resuscitation vs. those with standard care.
液体疗法在危重症患者的治疗中起着重要作用。然而,这些患者的血管内容量评估具有挑战性。已经使用了不同的有创和无创方法,但结果各不相同。被动抬腿(PLR)操作已被国际指南推荐作为确定适当液体复苏的一种方法。我们进行了这项系统评价和荟萃分析,以确定在感染性休克患者中使用这种容量评估方法是否对死亡率有影响。
这是一项系统评价和荟萃分析。我们从建库开始至 2020 年 10 月在 MEDLINE、CINAHL、EMBASE 和 CENTRAL 数据库中搜索了可用数据,以寻找比较 PLR 指导的液体复苏与标准护理在成人感染性休克患者中的前瞻性、随机、对照试验。我们的主要结局是最长随访时间的死亡率。
我们筛选了 1425 篇文章的标题和摘要。在 23 篇全文文章中,有 5 项研究符合纳入标准,共纳入 462 名患者。为每个研究计算了最长报告时间间隔的死亡率的比值比(OR)和相关的 95%置信区间(CI)。使用随机效应模型,PLR 指导复苏策略的死亡率合并 OR(95%CI)为 0.82(0.52-1.30)。纳入的研究没有设盲,并且使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具,它们的偏倚风险从低到高不等。
我们的分析表明,PLR 指导复苏与标准护理相比,感染性休克患者的死亡率没有统计学上的显著差异。