Yonsei medical journal · 2016
Protocol-Based Resuscitation for Septic Shock: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials and Observational Studies.
СтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lee Woo Kyung, Kim Ha Yeon, Lee Jinae, Koh Shin Ok, Kim Jeong Min, Na Sungwon
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Owing to the recommendations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, protocol-based resuscitation or goal-directed therapy (GDT) is broadly advocated for the treatment of septic shock. However, the most recently published trials showed no survival benefit from protocol-based resuscitation in septic shock patients. Hence, we aimed to assess the effect of GDT on clinical outcomes in such patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review that included a meta-analysis. We used electronic search engines including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database to find studies comparing protocol-based GDT to common or standard care in patients with septic shock and severe sepsis.
RESULTS: A total of 13269 septic shock patients in 24 studies were included [12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 observational studies]. The overall mortality odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] for GDT versus conventional care was 0.746 (0.631-0.883). In RCTs only, the mortality OR (95% CI) for GDT versus conventional care in the meta-analysis was 0.93 (0.75-1.16). The beneficial effect of GDT decreased as more recent studies were added in an alternative, cumulative meta-analysis. No significant publication bias was found.
CONCLUSION: The result of this meta-analysis suggests that GDT reduces mortality in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. However, our cumulative meta-analysis revealed that the reduction of mortality risk was diminished as more recent studies were added.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review that included a meta-analysis. We used electronic search engines including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database to find studies comparing protocol-based GDT to common or standard care in patients with septic shock and severe sepsis.
RESULTS: A total of 13269 septic shock patients in 24 studies were included [12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 observational studies]. The overall mortality odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] for GDT versus conventional care was 0.746 (0.631-0.883). In RCTs only, the mortality OR (95% CI) for GDT versus conventional care in the meta-analysis was 0.93 (0.75-1.16). The beneficial effect of GDT decreased as more recent studies were added in an alternative, cumulative meta-analysis. No significant publication bias was found.
CONCLUSION: The result of this meta-analysis suggests that GDT reduces mortality in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. However, our cumulative meta-analysis revealed that the reduction of mortality risk was diminished as more recent studies were added.