...
首页> 外文期刊>Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva >Sedation protocols versus daily sedation interruption: a systematic review and meta-analysis
【24h】

Sedation protocols versus daily sedation interruption: a systematic review and meta-analysis

机译:镇静方案与每日镇静中断:系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
           

摘要

Objective: The aim of this study was to systematically review studies that compared a mild target sedation protocol with daily sedation interruption and to perform a meta-analysis with the data presented in these studies. Methods: We searched Medline, Scopus and Web of Science databases to identify randomized clinical trials comparing sedation protocols with daily sedation interruption in critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome was mortality in the intensive care unit. Results: Seven studies were included, with a total of 892 patients. Mortality in the intensive care unit did not differ between the sedation protocol and daily sedation interruption groups (odds ratio [OR] = 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 - 1.10; I 2 = 0%). Hospital mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay did not differ between the groups either. Sedation protocols were associated with an increase in the number of days free of mechanical ventilation (mean difference = 6.70 days; 95%CI 1.09 - 12.31 days; I 2 = 87.2%) and a shorter duration of hospital length of stay (mean difference = -5.05 days, 95%CI -9.98 - -0.11 days; I 2 = 69%). There were no differences in regard to accidental extubation, extubation failure and the occurrence of delirium. Conclusion: Sedation protocols and daily sedation interruption do not appear to differ in regard to the majority of analyzed outcomes. The only differences found were small and had a high degree of heterogeneity.
机译:目的:本研究的目的是系统地回顾比较轻度目标镇静方案与每日镇静效果的研究,并对这些研究中提供的数据进行荟萃分析。方法:我们搜索Medline,Scopus和Web of Science数据库,以比较将镇静方案与每日镇静中断对需要机械通气的重症患者进行比较的随机临床试验。主要结局是重症监护病房的死亡率。结果:包括七项研究,共892例患者。镇静方案和每日镇静中断组之间的重症监护病房死亡率无差异(赔率[OR] = 0.81; 95%置信区间[CI] 0.60-1.10; I 2 = 0%)。两组之间的医院死亡率,机械通气时间,重症监护病房和住院时间均无差异。镇静方案与无机械通气天数增加(平均差= 6.70天; 95%CI 1.09-12.31天; I 2 = 87.2%)和住院时间较短(平均差= -5.05天,95%CI -9.98--0.11天; I 2 = 69%。在意外拔管,拔管失败和of妄发生方面没有差异。结论:就大多数分析结果而言,镇静方案和每日镇静中断似乎没有差异。发现的唯一差异很小,并且具有高度的异质性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号