Department of Cardiology, Shenzhen Cardiovascular Minimally Invasive Medical Engineering Technology Research and Development Center, 518020 Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Shenzhen People's Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University; The First Affiliated Hospital, Southern University of Science and Technology), 518020 Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2021 Sep 24;22(3):865-872. doi: 10.31083/j.rcm2203092.
Intravenous morphine is a controversial treatment for acute heart failure (AHF). This study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of intravenous morphine treatment vs. no morphine treatment in AHF patients. Relevant research conducted before June 2020 was retrieved from electronic databases. One unpublished study of our own was also included. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they compared AHF patients treated with intravenous morphine and patients who did not receive morphine. This meta-analysis included three propensity-matched cohorts and two retrospective analyses, involving a total of 149,967 patients (intravenous-morphine group, n = 22,072; no-morphine group, n = 127,895). There was a non-significant increase in the in-hospital mortality in the morphine group (combined odds ratio [OR] = 2.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88-5.23, = 0.095, = 97.1%). However, subgroup analyse showed that the rate of in-hospital mortality with odds of 1.41 times more likely (95% CI: 1.11-1.80, = 0.005, = 0%) in those receiving vs. not receiving intravenous morphine. No significant correlation was found between intravenous morphine and invasive mechanical ventilation (OR = 2.19, 95% CI: 0.84-5.73, = 0.10, = 94.2%; subgroup analysis: OR = 2.24, 95% CI: 0.70-7.21, = 0.176, = 95.1%) or long-term mortality (hazard ratio = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.96-1.34, = 0.335; = 8.6%). The administration of intravenous morphine to patients with AHF may be related to in-hospital mortality, but not to invasive mechanical ventilation and long-term mortality.
静脉注射吗啡治疗急性心力衰竭(AHF)存在争议。本研究旨在评估和比较静脉注射吗啡治疗与不给予吗啡治疗 AHF 患者的疗效。检索了 2020 年 6 月之前发表的电子数据库中的相关研究,并纳入了一项我们自己的未发表研究。如果研究比较了接受静脉注射吗啡和未接受吗啡的 AHF 患者,则认为该研究符合纳入标准。本荟萃分析共纳入了三个倾向评分匹配队列和两个回顾性分析,共纳入了 149967 例患者(静脉注射吗啡组,n=22072;未给予吗啡组,n=127895)。吗啡组的院内死亡率有升高趋势(合并比值比[OR] = 2.14,95%置信区间[CI]:0.88-5.23, = 0.095, = 97.1%),但无统计学意义。然而,亚组分析显示,与未接受静脉注射吗啡相比,接受者的院内死亡率的比值比为 1.41 倍(95%CI:1.11-1.80, = 0.005, = 0%)。静脉注射吗啡与有创机械通气(OR = 2.19,95%CI:0.84-5.73, = 0.10, = 94.2%;亚组分析:OR = 2.24,95%CI:0.70-7.21, = 0.176, = 95.1%)或长期死亡率(风险比=1.15,95%CI:0.96-1.34, = 0.335; = 8.6%)无显著相关性。静脉注射吗啡治疗 AHF 患者可能与院内死亡率相关,但与有创机械通气和长期死亡率无关。