Jangra Kiran, Gandhi Aravind P, Mishra Nitasha, Shamim Muhammad Aaqib, Padhi Bijaya K
Division of Neuroanesthesia and Neurocritical Care, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Department of Community Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.
Indian J Anaesth. 2024 Jul;68(7):592-605. doi: 10.4103/ija.ija_240_24. Epub 2024 Jun 7.
Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) has conflicting evidence regarding outcomes in neurosurgical patients. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effect of GDFT and conventional fluid therapy on various perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures.
A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, Cochrane and preprint servers. The search was conducted up until 16 October 2023, following PROSPERO registration. The search strategy included terms related to GDFT, neurosurgery and perioperative outcomes. Only randomised controlled trials involving adult humans and comparing GDFT with standard/liberal/traditional/restricted fluid therapy were included. The studies were evaluated for risk of bias (RoB), and pooled estimates of the outcomes were measured in terms of risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD).
No statistically significant difference was observed in neurological outcomes between GDFT and conventional fluid therapy [RR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was 1.10 (0.69, 1.75), two studies, 90 patients, low certainty of evidence using GRADEpro]. GDFT reduced postoperative complications [RR = 0.67 (0.54, 0.82), six studies, 392 participants] and intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay [MD (95% CI) were -1.65 (-3.02, -0.28) and -0.94 (-1.47, -0.42), respectively] with high certainty of evidence. The pulmonary complications were significantly lower in the GDFT group [RR (95% CI) = 0.55 (0.38, 0.79), seven studies, 442 patients, high certainty of evidence]. Other outcomes, including total intraoperative fluids administered and blood loss, were comparable in GDFT and conventional therapy groups [MD (95% CI) were -303.87 (-912.56, 304.82) and -14.79 (-49.05, 19.46), respectively].
The perioperative GDFT did not influence the neurological outcome. The postoperative complications and hospital and ICU stay were significantly reduced in the GDFT group.
目标导向液体治疗(GDFT)在神经外科患者预后方面的证据存在矛盾。本荟萃分析旨在比较GDFT与传统液体治疗对接受神经外科手术患者围手术期各项预后的影响。
使用PubMed、EMBASE、Scopus、ProQuest、Web of Science、EBSCOhost、Cochrane和预印本服务器进行全面的文献检索。检索截至2023年10月16日,遵循PROSPERO注册要求。检索策略包括与GDFT、神经外科和围手术期预后相关的术语。仅纳入涉及成年人类且将GDFT与标准/宽松/传统/限制性液体治疗进行比较的随机对照试验。对研究进行偏倚风险(RoB)评估,并根据风险比(RR)和平均差(MD)对预后的合并估计值进行测量。
GDFT与传统液体治疗在神经学预后方面未观察到统计学显著差异[RR,95%置信区间(CI)为1.10(0.69,1.75),两项研究,90例患者,使用GRADEpro证据确定性低]。GDFT降低了术后并发症[RR = 0.67(0.54,0.82),六项研究,392名参与者]以及重症监护病房(ICU)和住院时间[MD(95% CI)分别为 -1.65(-3.02,-0.28)和 -0.94(-1.47,-0.42)],证据确定性高。GDFT组的肺部并发症显著更低[RR(95% CI) = 0.55(0.38,0.79),七项研究,442例患者,证据确定性高]。其他预后,包括术中总液体输入量和失血量,在GDFT组和传统治疗组中相当[MD(95% CI)分别为 -303.87(-912.56,304.82)和 -14.79(-49.05,19.46)]。
围手术期GDFT不影响神经学预后。GDFT组术后并发症以及住院和ICU停留时间显著减少。