Zitikyte Gabriele, Roy Danielle C, Tran Alexandre, Fernando Shannon M, Rosenberg Erin, Kanji Salmaan, Engels Paul T, Wells George A, Vaillancourt Christian
School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Crit Care Explor. 2023 Mar 15;5(3):e0875. doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000875. eCollection 2023 Mar.
To compare the relative efficacy of pharmacologic interventions in the prevention of delirium in ICU trauma patients.
We searched Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Embase, and Cochrane Registry of Clinical Trials from database inception until June 7, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials comparing pharmacologic interventions in critically ill trauma patients.
Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines for network analysis were followed. Random-effects models were fit using a Bayesian approach to network meta-analysis. Between-group comparisons were estimated using hazard ratios (HRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, each with 95% credible intervals. Treatment rankings were estimated for each outcome in the form of surface under the cumulative ranking curve values.
A total 3,541 citations were screened; six randomized clinical trials ( = 382 patients) were included. Compared with combined propofol-dexmedetomidine, there may be no difference in delirium prevalence with dexmedetomidine (HR 1.44, 95% CI 0.39-6.94), propofol (HR 2.38, 95% CI 0.68-11.36), nor haloperidol (HR 3.38, 95% CI 0.65-21.79); compared with dexmedetomidine alone, there may be no effect with propofol (HR 1.66, 95% CI 0.79-3.69) nor haloperidol (HR 2.30, 95% CI 0.88-6.61).
The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that there is no difference found between pharmacologic interventions on delirium occurrence, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, or mortality, in trauma ICU patients.
比较药物干预措施预防重症监护病房(ICU)创伤患者谵妄的相对疗效。
我们检索了从数据库建立至2022年6月7日的医学文献分析和联机检索系统(MEDLINE)、Embase以及Cochrane临床试验注册库。我们纳入了比较重症创伤患者药物干预措施的随机对照试验。
两名评审员独立筛选研究以确定其是否符合条件、提取数据并评估偏倚风险。
遵循系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)网络分析指南。使用贝叶斯方法对网络Meta分析进行随机效应模型拟合。组间比较采用二分类结局的风险比(HR)和连续结局的均值差进行估计,均带有95%可信区间。以累积排序曲线下面积值的形式估计每个结局的治疗排名。
共筛选了3541篇文献;纳入了6项随机临床试验(n = 382例患者)。与丙泊酚-右美托咪定联合使用相比,右美托咪定(HR 1.44,95%CI 0.39 - 6.94)、丙泊酚(HR 2.38,95%CI 0.68 - 11.36)或氟哌啶醇(HR 3.38,95%CI 0.65 - 21.79)在谵妄患病率方面可能无差异;与单独使用右美托咪定相比,丙泊酚(HR 1.66,95%CI 0.79 - 3.69)或氟哌啶醇(HR 2.30,95%CI 0.88 - 6.61)可能无效果。
该网络Meta分析结果表明,在创伤ICU患者中,药物干预措施在谵妄发生、ICU住院时间、住院时间或死亡率方面无差异。