首页> 外文期刊>Transfusion medicine reviews >Efficacy and safety of erythropoietin and intravenous iron in perioperative blood management: A systematic review
【24h】

Efficacy and safety of erythropoietin and intravenous iron in perioperative blood management: A systematic review

机译:促红细胞生成素和静脉铁剂在围手术期血液管理中的疗效和安全性:系统评价

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

The use of erythropoietin (EPO) and intravenous (IV) iron as bloodless therapeutic modalities is being explored in the current era of restrictive transfusion strategies and perioperative blood management. It is unclear, however, whether the evidence in the literature supports their safety and efficacy in reducing perioperative red cell transfusions. Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate their use in a variety of perioperative settings. We performed a literature search of English articles published between July 1997 and July 2012 in MEDLINE via PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Only studies with a comparator group were eligible for inclusion. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 nonrandomized studies were included in the final review. Using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, 8 RCTs were assessed to be at low risk for methodological bias. Of these, however, only 4 RCTs were adequately powered to detect a reduction in transfusion rates. Patients with preoperative iron deficiency anemia may have an earlier and more robust hemoglobin recovery with preoperative IV iron therapy than with oral iron supplementation. A short preoperative regimen of EPO, or a single dose of EPO plus IV iron in the preoperative or intraoperative period, may significantly reduce transfusion rates (number needed to treat to avoid any transfusion ranged from 3 to 6). With regard to the safety of erythropoietin-stimulating agent therapy, IV iron appears to be as well tolerated as oral iron; however, the incidence of severe anaphylactic-type reactions attributable to IV iron is difficult to estimate in prospective trials because of its relatively infrequent occurrence. Furthermore, EPO may increase the risk of thromboembolism in spinal surgery patients who receive mechanical antithrombotic prophylaxis in the perioperative period so pharmacological thromboprophylaxis is advised. Future low risk of bias, adequately powered prospective efficacy, and safety trials in various surgical settings that traditionally require red cell transfusions would be required to make evidenced-based conclusions about the clinical significance of erythropoietin-stimulating agent as a transfusion avoidance strategy in perioperative blood management.
机译:在当前限制性输血策略和围手术期血液管理的时代,正在探索使用促红细胞生成素(EPO)和静脉内(IV)铁作为无血治疗方法。但是,尚不清楚文献中的证据是否支持其减少围手术期红细胞输注的安全性和有效性。遵循系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目,我们进行了系统评价,以评估其在各种围手术期环境中的使用。我们对1997年7月至2012年7月在MEDLINE中通过PubMed,Cochrane图书馆和CINAHL发表的英语文章进行了文献检索。只有具有比较组的研究才有资格被纳入。最后的评价包括24项随机对照试验(RCT)和15项非随机研究。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具,对8个RCT评估为方法偏倚风险较低。但是,其中只有4个RCT具有足够的能力来检测输血速率的降低。与口服补铁相比,术前静脉铁疗法可使术前缺铁性贫血患者的血红蛋白恢复更早,更稳定。术前短暂的EPO方案,或术前或术中单剂量的EPO加IV铁可能会显着降低输血率(为避免任何输血而需要治疗的次数为3至6)。关于促红细胞生成素刺激剂治疗的安全性,静脉注射铁似乎与口服铁一样耐受。然而,由于IV铁的发生频率相对较低,因此很难在前瞻性试验中估计归因于IV铁的严重过敏性反应的发生率。此外,在围手术期接受机械性抗栓预防的脊柱外科手术患者中,EPO可能会增加血栓栓塞的风险,因此建议进行药理性栓塞预防。在传统上需要红细胞输注的各种外科手术环境中,未来偏倚风险较低,具有足够的前瞻性疗效以及安全性试验,需要就循证医学得出促红细胞生成素刺激剂作为围手术期避免输血策略的临床意义的结论管理。

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