Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia · 2018
Intravenous and Inhaled Milrinone in Adult Cardiac Surgery Patients: A Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание 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.
Rong Lisa Q, Rahouma Mohamed, Abouarab Ahmed, Di Franco Antonino, Calautti Nicole M, Fitzgerald Meghann M, Arisha Mohammed J, Ibrahim Dina A, Girardi Leonard N, Pryor Kane O, Gaudino Mario
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the evidence on the hemodynamic, echocardiographic, and clinical effects of inhaled and intravenous milrinone (iMil and IvMil) in adult cardiac surgery patients.
DESIGN: Systematic review, pairwise and network meta-analysis.
SETTING: Multi-institutional.
PARTICIPANTS: Adult cardiac surgery patients.
INTERVENTIONS: Comparison between iMil and IvMil versus other agents or placebo.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary endpoints were mean pulmonary artery pressure (MPAP) and peripheral vascular resistance (PVR). Secondary endpoints included the following: (1) mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and cardiac index (CI); (2) echocardiographic data; and (3) clinical outcomes. Random model, leave-one-out-analysis, and meta-regression were used. Thirty studies (6 iMil and 24 IvMil) were included for a total of 1,438 patients (194 iMil and 521 IvMil). IvMil was associated with a lower MPAP, lower PVR, and higher CI compared to placebo (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.22 [95% CI = -0.48 to 0.05], SMD = -0.49 [95% CI = -0.71 to -0.27], and SMD = 0.94 [95% CI = 0.51 to 1.37]). No difference in any outcome was found between iMil and placebo. At network meta-analysis, significantly lower PVR and shorter hospital length of stay were found for IvMil compared to iMil (SMD = -0.82 [95% CI = -1.53 to -0.10] and SMD = -0.50 [95% CI = -0.95 to -0.05], respectively).
CONCLUSION: These results support the clinical use of IvMil in cardiac surgery patients. No evidence at present supports the adoption of iMil.
DESIGN: Systematic review, pairwise and network meta-analysis.
SETTING: Multi-institutional.
PARTICIPANTS: Adult cardiac surgery patients.
INTERVENTIONS: Comparison between iMil and IvMil versus other agents or placebo.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary endpoints were mean pulmonary artery pressure (MPAP) and peripheral vascular resistance (PVR). Secondary endpoints included the following: (1) mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and cardiac index (CI); (2) echocardiographic data; and (3) clinical outcomes. Random model, leave-one-out-analysis, and meta-regression were used. Thirty studies (6 iMil and 24 IvMil) were included for a total of 1,438 patients (194 iMil and 521 IvMil). IvMil was associated with a lower MPAP, lower PVR, and higher CI compared to placebo (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.22 [95% CI = -0.48 to 0.05], SMD = -0.49 [95% CI = -0.71 to -0.27], and SMD = 0.94 [95% CI = 0.51 to 1.37]). No difference in any outcome was found between iMil and placebo. At network meta-analysis, significantly lower PVR and shorter hospital length of stay were found for IvMil compared to iMil (SMD = -0.82 [95% CI = -1.53 to -0.10] and SMD = -0.50 [95% CI = -0.95 to -0.05], respectively).
CONCLUSION: These results support the clinical use of IvMil in cardiac surgery patients. No evidence at present supports the adoption of iMil.