Ben-Arie Eyal, Lottering Bernice Jeanne, Chen Fang-Pey, Ho Wen-Chao, Lee Yu-Chen, Inprasit Chanya, Kao Pei-Yu
Graduate School of Acupuncture Science, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Institute of Traditional Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Front Med (Lausanne). 2023 Aug 24;10:1190635. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1190635. eCollection 2023.
The safety of interventions for critically ill patients is a crucial issue. In recent years, several studies have treated critically ill patients with acupuncture. However, the safety of acupuncture in this setting remains to be systematically measured.
In May 2022, the electronic databases of PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies comparing acupuncture interventions to control interventions in critically ill patients. Study outcomes examined the incidence of severe adverse events (AEs), minor AEs, adverse reactions, ICU stays, and 28-day mortality.
A total of 31 articles were analyzed, and no serious AEs related to acupuncture treatment were identified. No significant differences were found between the groups in the meta-analysis of minor AEs (risk ratio [RR] 5.69 [0.34, 96.60], = 0.23, = 76%). A reduced risk in the incidence of adverse reactions following acupuncture intervention was evidenced (RR 0.33 [0.22, 0.50], = 0.00001, = 44%). The patients in the acupuncture arm spent significantly less time in the intensive care unit (ICU) (Mean difference -1.45 [-11.94, -10.97], = 0.00001, = 56%) and also exhibited lower 28-day mortality rates (odds ratio 0.61 [0.48, 0.78], = 0.0001, = 0%).
There is no evidence to indicate a higher risk of severe or minor AEs in patients who receive acupuncture. Acupuncture demonstrated favorable results in both ICU stay and 28-day mortality measurements, in addition to presenting with fewer adverse reactions compared to routine ICU care. However, the low certainty of the evidence resulting from a high risk of bias in the included studies merits substantial consideration, and further research is still warranted.
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=142131, identifier: CRD42020142131.
重症患者干预措施的安全性是一个关键问题。近年来,多项研究对重症患者进行了针灸治疗。然而,针灸在这种情况下的安全性仍有待系统评估。
2022年5月,检索了PubMed和Cochrane图书馆的电子数据库,以查找比较重症患者针灸干预与对照干预的研究。研究结果考察了严重不良事件(AE)、轻微AE、不良反应的发生率、重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间和28天死亡率。
共分析了31篇文章,未发现与针灸治疗相关的严重AE。在轻微AE的荟萃分析中,两组之间未发现显著差异(风险比[RR]5.69[0.34,96.60],P = 0.23,I² = 76%)。有证据表明针灸干预后不良反应的发生率降低(RR 0.33[0.22,0.50],P = 0.00001,I² = 44%)。接受针灸治疗的患者在ICU的住院时间显著缩短(平均差-1.45[-11.94,-10.97],P = 0.00001,I² = 56%),28天死亡率也较低(比值比0.61[0.48,0.78],P = 0.0001,I² = 0%)。
没有证据表明接受针灸治疗的患者发生严重或轻微AE的风险更高。与常规ICU护理相比,针灸在ICU住院时间和28天死亡率测量方面均显示出良好效果,且不良反应较少。然而,纳入研究中存在的高偏倚风险导致证据的确定性较低,值得充分考虑,仍有必要进行进一步研究。
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=142131,标识符:CRD42020142131。