首页> 外文期刊>European journal of anaesthesiology >Targeting oliguria reversal in perioperative restrictive fluid management does not influence the occurrence of renal dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis
【24h】

Targeting oliguria reversal in perioperative restrictive fluid management does not influence the occurrence of renal dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

机译:围手术期限制性液体管理中针对性少尿症的逆转不影响肾功能不全的发生:系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUNDInterest in perioperative fluid restriction has increased, but it could lead to hypovolaemia. Urine output is viewed as a surrogate for renal perfusion and is frequently used to guide perioperative fluid therapy. However, the rationale behind targeting oliguria reversal - achieving and maintaining urine output above a previously defined threshold by additional fluid boluses - is often questioned.OBJECTIVEWe assessed whether restrictive fluid management had an effect on oliguria, acute renal failure (ARF) and fluid intake. We also investigated whether targeting oliguria reversal affected these parameters.DESIGNSystematic review of randomised controlled trials with meta-analyses. We used the definitions of restrictive and conventional fluid management as provided by the individual studies.DATA SOURCESWe searched MEDLINE (1966 to present), EMBASE (1980 to present), and relevant reviews and articles.ELIGIBILITY CRITERIAWe included randomised controlled trials with adult patients undergoing surgery comparing restrictive fluid management with a conventional fluid management protocol and also reporting the occurrence of postoperative ARF.RESULTSWe included 15 studies with a total of 1594 patients. There was insufficient evidence to associate restrictive fluid management with an increase in oliguria [restrictive 83/186 vs. conventional 68/230; odds ratio (OR) 2.07; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.97 to 4.44; P=0.06; I-2=23.7%; N-studies=5]. The frequency of ARF in restrictive and conventional fluid management was 20/795 and 20/799, respectively (OR 1.07; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.92; P=0.8; I-2=17.5%; N-studies=15). There was no statistically significant difference in ARF occurrence between studies targeting oliguria reversal and not targeting oliguria reversal (OR 0.31; 95% CI, 0.08 to 1.22; P=0.088). Intraoperative fluid intake was 1.89l lower in restrictive than in conventional fluid management when not targeting oliguria reversal (95% CI, -2.59 to -1.20l; P<0.001; I-2=96.6%; N-studies=7), and 1.63l lower when targeting oliguria reversal (95% CI, -2.52 to -0.74l; P<0.001; I-2=96.6%; N-studies=6).CONCLUSIONOur data suggest that, even though event numbers are small, perioperative restrictive fluid management does not increase oliguria or postoperative ARF while decreasing intraoperative fluid intake, irrespective of targeting reversal of oliguria or not.
机译:背景围手术期液体限制的兴趣有所增加,但可能导致低血容量。尿量输出被视为肾脏灌注的替代物,经常被用来指导围手术期液体疗法。然而,针对少尿症逆转的基本原理(通过额外的大剂量推注使尿量达到并维持在先前定义的阈值之上)经常受到质疑。目的我们评估了限制性节水管理是否对少尿,急性肾衰竭(ARF)和体液摄入有影响。我们还研究了靶向少尿症的逆转是否影响了这些参数。DESIGN系统分析荟萃分析的随机对照试验。我们使用了个别研究提供的限制性和常规输液管理的定义。数据来源我们检索了MEDLINE(1966年至今),EMBASE(1980年至今)以及相关的评论和文章。资格标准我们纳入了接受成人成年患者的随机对照试验该手术将限制性液体管理与常规液体管理协议进行了比较,并报告了术后ARF的发生。结果我们纳入了15项研究,共1594例患者。没有足够的证据将限制性液体管理与少尿增加相关联[限制性83/186 vs.传统68/230;比值比(OR)2.07; 95%置信区间(CI)为0.97至4.44; P = 0.06; I-2 = 23.7%; N个研究= 5]。 ARF在限制性和常规液体管理中的发生频率分别为20/795和20/799(OR 1.07; 95%CI,0.60至1.92; P = 0.8; I-2 = 17.5%; N研究= 15)。在针对少尿症逆转和不针对少尿症逆转的研究之间,ARF发生没有统计学显着差异(OR 0.31; 95%CI,0.08至1.22; P = 0.088)。当不针对少尿症逆转时,术中限制摄入量比常规液体处理低1.89l(95%CI,-2.59至-1.20l; P <0.001; I-2 = 96.6%; N研究= 7),以及靶向少尿症时降低1.63l(95%CI,-2.52至-0.74l; P <0.001; I-2 = 96.6%; N-研究= 6)。结论我们的数据表明,即使事件数量少,围手术期也是如此。限制性液体管理不会增加少尿或术后ARF,同时减少术中液体摄入量,无论是否有针对性的少尿逆转。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
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