预防创伤患者谵妄的药物干预:随机对照试验的系统回顾和网络荟萃分析。

Gabriele Zitikyte, Danielle C Roy, Alexandre Tran, Shannon M Fernando, Erin Rosenberg, Salmaan Kanji, Paul T Engels, George A Wells, Christian Vaillancourt
{"title":"预防创伤患者谵妄的药物干预:随机对照试验的系统回顾和网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Gabriele Zitikyte,&nbsp;Danielle C Roy,&nbsp;Alexandre Tran,&nbsp;Shannon M Fernando,&nbsp;Erin Rosenberg,&nbsp;Salmaan Kanji,&nbsp;Paul T Engels,&nbsp;George A Wells,&nbsp;Christian Vaillancourt","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000875","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To compare the relative efficacy of pharmacologic interventions in the prevention of delirium in ICU trauma patients.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Embase, and Cochrane Registry of Clinical Trials from database inception until June 7, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials comparing pharmacologic interventions in critically ill trauma patients.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines for network analysis were followed. Random-effects models were fit using a Bayesian approach to network meta-analysis. Between-group comparisons were estimated using hazard ratios (HRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, each with 95% credible intervals. Treatment rankings were estimated for each outcome in the form of surface under the cumulative ranking curve values.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>A total 3,541 citations were screened; six randomized clinical trials (<i>n</i> = 382 patients) were included. Compared with combined propofol-dexmedetomidine, there may be no difference in delirium prevalence with dexmedetomidine (HR 1.44, 95% CI 0.39-6.94), propofol (HR 2.38, 95% CI 0.68-11.36), nor haloperidol (HR 3.38, 95% CI 0.65-21.79); compared with dexmedetomidine alone, there may be no effect with propofol (HR 1.66, 95% CI 0.79-3.69) nor haloperidol (HR 2.30, 95% CI 0.88-6.61).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that there is no difference found between pharmacologic interventions on delirium occurrence, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, or mortality, in trauma ICU patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":10759,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Explorations","volume":"5 3","pages":"e0875"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/17/1e/cc9-5-e0875.PMC10019141.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pharmacologic Interventions to Prevent Delirium in Trauma Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Gabriele Zitikyte,&nbsp;Danielle C Roy,&nbsp;Alexandre Tran,&nbsp;Shannon M Fernando,&nbsp;Erin Rosenberg,&nbsp;Salmaan Kanji,&nbsp;Paul T Engels,&nbsp;George A Wells,&nbsp;Christian Vaillancourt\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000875\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To compare the relative efficacy of pharmacologic interventions in the prevention of delirium in ICU trauma patients.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Embase, and Cochrane Registry of Clinical Trials from database inception until June 7, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials comparing pharmacologic interventions in critically ill trauma patients.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines for network analysis were followed. Random-effects models were fit using a Bayesian approach to network meta-analysis. Between-group comparisons were estimated using hazard ratios (HRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, each with 95% credible intervals. Treatment rankings were estimated for each outcome in the form of surface under the cumulative ranking curve values.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>A total 3,541 citations were screened; six randomized clinical trials (<i>n</i> = 382 patients) were included. Compared with combined propofol-dexmedetomidine, there may be no difference in delirium prevalence with dexmedetomidine (HR 1.44, 95% CI 0.39-6.94), propofol (HR 2.38, 95% CI 0.68-11.36), nor haloperidol (HR 3.38, 95% CI 0.65-21.79); compared with dexmedetomidine alone, there may be no effect with propofol (HR 1.66, 95% CI 0.79-3.69) nor haloperidol (HR 2.30, 95% CI 0.88-6.61).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that there is no difference found between pharmacologic interventions on delirium occurrence, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, or mortality, in trauma ICU patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10759,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care Explorations\",\"volume\":\"5 3\",\"pages\":\"e0875\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/17/1e/cc9-5-e0875.PMC10019141.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care Explorations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000875\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000875","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较不同药物干预预防ICU创伤患者谵妄的相对疗效。数据来源:从数据库建立到2022年6月7日,我们检索了Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online、Embase和Cochrane Registry of Clinical Trials。我们纳入了比较危重创伤患者的药物干预的随机对照试验。研究选择:两位审稿人独立筛选研究的合格性、提取数据并评估偏倚风险。数据提取:遵循系统评价的首选报告项目和网络分析的元分析指南。随机效应模型使用贝叶斯方法进行网络元分析。组间比较采用二分类结果的风险比(hr)和连续结果的平均差异来估计,每个结果都有95%的可信区间。在累积排名曲线值下以曲面的形式估计每个结果的治疗排名。数据综合:共筛选了3541篇引文;纳入6项随机临床试验(n = 382例)。与异丙酚-右美托咪定联合用药相比,右美托咪定(HR 1.44, 95% CI 0.39-6.94)、异丙酚(HR 2.38, 95% CI 0.68-11.36)和氟哌啶醇(HR 3.38, 95% CI 0.65-21.79)在谵妄患病率方面可能没有差异;与单独使用右美托咪定相比,异丙酚(HR 1.66, 95% CI 0.79-3.69)和氟哌啶醇(HR 2.30, 95% CI 0.88-6.61)可能没有影响。结论:该网络荟萃分析的结果表明,在创伤ICU患者中,药物干预对谵妄发生、ICU住院时间、住院时间或死亡率没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Pharmacologic Interventions to Prevent Delirium in Trauma Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

To compare the relative efficacy of pharmacologic interventions in the prevention of delirium in ICU trauma patients.

Data sources: We searched Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Embase, and Cochrane Registry of Clinical Trials from database inception until June 7, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials comparing pharmacologic interventions in critically ill trauma patients.

Study selection: Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.

Data extraction: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines for network analysis were followed. Random-effects models were fit using a Bayesian approach to network meta-analysis. Between-group comparisons were estimated using hazard ratios (HRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, each with 95% credible intervals. Treatment rankings were estimated for each outcome in the form of surface under the cumulative ranking curve values.

Data synthesis: A total 3,541 citations were screened; six randomized clinical trials (n = 382 patients) were included. Compared with combined propofol-dexmedetomidine, there may be no difference in delirium prevalence with dexmedetomidine (HR 1.44, 95% CI 0.39-6.94), propofol (HR 2.38, 95% CI 0.68-11.36), nor haloperidol (HR 3.38, 95% CI 0.65-21.79); compared with dexmedetomidine alone, there may be no effect with propofol (HR 1.66, 95% CI 0.79-3.69) nor haloperidol (HR 2.30, 95% CI 0.88-6.61).

Conclusions: The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that there is no difference found between pharmacologic interventions on delirium occurrence, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, or mortality, in trauma ICU patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A New Dosing Frontier: Retrospective Assessment of Effluent Flow Rates and Residual Renal Function Among Critically Ill Patients Receiving Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy Hemodynamic Determinants of Cardiac Surgery-Associated Acute Kidney Injury Racial Differences in Accuracy of Predictive Models for High-Flow Nasal Cannula Failure in COVID-19 Knowledge and Practice Gaps in Pediatric Neurocritical Care Nursing: Lessons Learned From a Specialized Educational Boot Camp Unifying Fluid Responsiveness and Tolerance With Physiology: A Dynamic Interpretation of the Diamond–Forrester Classification
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1