Department of Anesthesiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 1 Shuaifuyuan, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
Joint Laboratory of Anesthesia and Pain, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
J Anesth. 2023 Aug;37(4):573-581. doi: 10.1007/s00540-023-03205-4. Epub 2023 Jun 8.
The objective of this study was to provide an updated review on the active warming effects on major adverse cardiac events, 30-day all-cause mortality, and myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery.
We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Chinese BioMedical Literature Database. We included randomized controlled trials of adult population undergoing noncardiac surgeries that concentrate on the comparison of active warming methods and passive thermal management. Cochrane Collaboration's tool was applied for risk-of-bias assessment. We used trial sequential analysis to evaluate the possibility of false positive or negative results.
A total of 13,316 unique records were identified, of which only 19 with reported perioperative cardiovascular outcomes were included in the systematic review and nine of them were included in final meta-analysis. No statistically significant difference between active warming methods and routine care was found in major adverse cardiac events (RR 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14-2.21, I = 71%, number of events 59 vs. 70), 30-day all-cause mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.43-1.54, I = 0%, number of events 17 vs. 21), and myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.17-2.22, I = 79%, number of events 236 vs. 234). Trial sequential analysis suggests that current trials did not reach the minimum information size regarding the major cardiovascular events.
Compared to routine perioperative care, we found that active warming methods are not necessary for cardiovascular prevention in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.
本研究旨在提供关于非心脏手术后主要不良心脏事件、30 天全因死亡率和心肌损伤的主动升温作用的最新综述。
我们系统地检索了 MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、Cochrane 中心、Web of Science 和中国生物医学文献数据库。我们纳入了专注于比较主动升温方法和被动热管理的成人非心脏手术患者的随机对照试验。采用 Cochrane 协作工具进行偏倚风险评估。我们使用试验序贯分析来评估出现假阳性或假阴性结果的可能性。
共确定了 13316 条独特的记录,其中只有 19 项报告了围手术期心血管结局的研究被纳入系统评价,其中 9 项被纳入最终的荟萃分析。主动升温方法与常规护理在主要不良心脏事件(RR 0.56,95%置信区间(CI)0.14-2.21,I=71%,事件数 59 与 70)、30 天全因死亡率(RR 0.81,95%CI 0.43-1.54,I=0%,事件数 17 与 21)和非心脏手术后心肌损伤(RR 0.61,95%CI 0.17-2.22,I=79%,事件数 236 与 234)方面无统计学差异。试验序贯分析表明,目前的试验在主要心血管事件方面尚未达到最小信息量。
与常规围手术期护理相比,我们发现主动升温方法对于非心脏手术患者的心血管预防并非必要。