Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Lund University, Helsingborg Hospital, Helsingborg, Sweden
Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Lund University, Helsingborg Hospital, Helsingborg, Sweden.
BMJ Open. 2022 Sep 8;12(9):e061806. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061806.
INTRODUCTION: It is standard of care to provide sedation to critically ill patients to reduce anxiety, discomfort and promote tolerance of mechanical ventilation. Given that sedatives can have differing effects based on a variety of patient and pharmacological characteristics, treatment approaches are largely based on targeting the level of sedation. The benefits of differing levels of sedation must be balanced against potential adverse effects including haemodynamic instability, causing delirium, delaying awakening and prolonging the time of mechanical ventilation and intensive care stay. This systematic review with meta-analysis aims to investigate the current evidence and compare the effects of differing sedation levels in adult critically ill patients. METHODS AND ANALYSES: We will conduct a systematic review based on searches of preidentified major medical databases (eg, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify trials meeting inclusion criteria. We will include randomised clinical trials comparing any degree of sedation with no sedation and lighter sedation with deeper sedation for critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit. We will include aggregate data meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses. Risk of bias will be assessed with domains based on the Cochrane risk of bias tool. An eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed using Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No formal approval or review of ethics is required as individual patient data will not be included. This systematic review has the potential to highlight (1) whether one should believe sedation to be beneficial, harmful or neither in critically ill adults; (2) the existing knowledge gaps and (3) whether the recommendations from guidelines and daily clinical practice are supported by current evidence. These results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
简介:为减轻危重患者的焦虑、不适并促进其对机械通气的耐受,为其提供镇静治疗是常规治疗手段。鉴于镇静剂可能会因患者和药理学特征的不同而产生不同的效果,因此治疗方法主要基于目标镇静水平。必须权衡不同镇静水平的益处与潜在的不良反应,包括血流动力学不稳定、引起谵妄、延迟苏醒、延长机械通气和重症监护停留时间。本系统评价结合荟萃分析旨在调查目前的证据,并比较成人危重症患者不同镇静水平的效果。
方法和分析:我们将基于预先确定的主要医学数据库(如 MEDLINE、EMBASE、CENTRAL)和临床试验登记处进行系统检索,检索时间从其成立开始,以确定符合纳入标准的试验。我们将纳入比较任何程度镇静与无镇静、轻度镇静与深度镇静对入住重症监护病房的危重症患者的随机临床试验。我们将纳入汇总数据荟萃分析和试验序贯分析。将根据 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具的领域评估偏倚风险。将使用八步程序评估是否跨越了临床意义的阈值,并使用推荐评估、制定与评价分级评估证据的确定性。
伦理与传播:由于不包括个体患者数据,因此不需要正式的批准或审查伦理。本系统评价有可能突出显示(1)在成人危重症患者中,人们是否应该相信镇静是有益、有害还是两者都没有;(2)现有知识空白;(3)指南和日常临床实践中的建议是否得到当前证据的支持。这些结果将通过发表在同行评议的期刊上进行传播。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-11-12
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014-7-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-2-1
Health Technol Assess. 2016-3
Early Hum Dev. 2020-11
N Engl J Med. 2021-6-17
N Engl J Med. 2021-4-15
J Crit Care. 2020-4