Anesthesia and analgesia · 2012
Fluid resuscitation with 6% hydroxyethyl starch (130/0.4) in acutely ill patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Gattas David J, Dan Arina, Myburgh John, Billot Laurent, Lo Serigne, Finfer Simon, CHEST Management Committee
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Recent research suggests that 6% hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 130/0.4 is one of the most frequently used resuscitation fluids worldwide. The retraction of studies evaluating its use necessitates a reevaluation of available evidence regarding its safety and efficacy.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of unretracted randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of 6% HES 130/0.4 with other colloid or crystalloid solutions on mortality, acute kidney injury/failure, and bleeding in acutely ill or perioperative patients. A sensitivity analysis including the data from retracted studies was also conducted.
RESULTS: Overall, 36 studies reporting 2149 participants met the inclusion criteria, of which 11 (n = 541) have been retracted. Of the remaining 25 studies, there was a high risk of bias in 17 studies; 19 studies (n = 1246) were conducted in perioperative patients and 6 (n = 362) in critically ill patients. Sixteen studies reported mortality: 104 deaths in 1184 participants. The relative risk of death was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.64-1.42, I(2) = 0%, P = 0.73); including the retracted studies added a further 14 deaths and the relative risk was 0.92 (95% confidence interval 0.63-1.34, I(2) = 0%, P = 0.95). The data reporting acute kidney injury, red blood cell transfusion, and bleeding were of insufficient quantity and quality and not amenable to meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Published studies are of poor quality and report too few events to reliably estimate the benefits or risks of administering 6% HES 130/0.4. This same conclusion is reached with or without the retracted studies. Given the widespread use of 6% HES 130/0.4, high-quality trials reporting a large number of events are urgently required.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of unretracted randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of 6% HES 130/0.4 with other colloid or crystalloid solutions on mortality, acute kidney injury/failure, and bleeding in acutely ill or perioperative patients. A sensitivity analysis including the data from retracted studies was also conducted.
RESULTS: Overall, 36 studies reporting 2149 participants met the inclusion criteria, of which 11 (n = 541) have been retracted. Of the remaining 25 studies, there was a high risk of bias in 17 studies; 19 studies (n = 1246) were conducted in perioperative patients and 6 (n = 362) in critically ill patients. Sixteen studies reported mortality: 104 deaths in 1184 participants. The relative risk of death was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.64-1.42, I(2) = 0%, P = 0.73); including the retracted studies added a further 14 deaths and the relative risk was 0.92 (95% confidence interval 0.63-1.34, I(2) = 0%, P = 0.95). The data reporting acute kidney injury, red blood cell transfusion, and bleeding were of insufficient quantity and quality and not amenable to meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Published studies are of poor quality and report too few events to reliably estimate the benefits or risks of administering 6% HES 130/0.4. This same conclusion is reached with or without the retracted studies. Given the widespread use of 6% HES 130/0.4, high-quality trials reporting a large number of events are urgently required.