论文部分内容阅读
目的:通过系统评价的方法探讨超声引导下液体复苏以及早期目标导向治疗（EGDT）对早期脓毒性休克患者的复苏效果。方法:检索万方数据、中国知网（CNKI）、中国生物医学文献服务系统（SinoMed）、维普数据库（VIP）以及美国国立医学图书馆PubMed数据库、荷兰医学文摘Embase数据库、Cochrane图书馆数据库、科学网（Web of Science）等中英文数据库，纳入从建库至2019年8月发表的有关超声引导下液体复苏与EGDT对脓毒性休克患者复苏效果比较的前瞻性随机对照试验（RCT），语言、国家、地域不限。采用两人独立评阅、交叉核对的方式进行资料提取及质量评价。结果:最终仅纳入2项英文RCT研究。由于2项RCT中超声组分别使用下腔静脉塌陷指数（VCCI）和超声评分指导液体复苏导致临床异质性，故无法合并，仅进行系统评价，不进行Meta分析。2项RCT分别存在测量偏倚和选择偏倚，文献质量等级分别为B级和C级。系统评价结果显示，与EGDT组相比，超声组脓毒性休克患者7 d病死率明显降低（15.0%比35.0%，n P＝0.039），24 h液体平衡量明显减少（mL：900比1 850，n P<0.01）；由于超声易于评估脓毒性休克患者的容量反应性与心功能，因此肺水肿发生率也较EGDT组明显降低（15.0%比37.5%，n P＝0.022）。但超声组患者28 d病死率、机械通气时间和重症监护病房（ICU）住院时间与EGDT组比较差异均无统计学意义。n 结论:与侵入性EGDT治疗方案相比，脓毒性休克患者入院7 d内使用超声指导下液体复苏方案可能是有益和实用的，但不能降低28 d病死率，也不能缩短机械通气时间和ICU住院时间。“,”Objective:To systematically review the efficacy of ultrasound-guided fluid resuscitation and early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) in patients with septic shock.Methods:Multiple databases including Wanfang, CNKI, SinoMed, VIP, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched from initial to August 2019 for randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies about the comparison of ultrasound-guided fluid resuscitation and EGDT on resuscitation effect in patients with septic shock. Language, country and region were unlimited. Data extraction and quality evaluation were carried out by means of independent review and cross check results by two researchers.Results:Finally, only two English RCT studies were enrolled. In the two RCT studies, the ultrasound groups used inferior vena cava collapse index (VCCI) and ultrasound score to guide fluid resuscitation, which resulted in clinical heterogeneity. Because the results could not be pooled, only systematic review, not meta-analysis, could be done. There were measurement bias and selection bias in the two RCT studies, and the literature quality level was B and C respectively. System review results showed that using ultrasound would reduce 7-day mortality (15.0% vs. 35.0%, n P = 0.039) and prescribe less of 24-hour intravenous fluids (mL: 900 vs. 1 850, n P < 0.01) for patients with septic shock as compared with EGDT. Ultrasound was easy to assess the reactive capacity and cardiac function of patients with septic shock, so as to decrease the incidence of pulmonary edema, which was significantly lower than EGDT (15.0% vs. 37.5%, n P = 0.022). However, there was no statistically significant difference in 28-day mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation or length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay between the two groups.n Conclusion:The ultrasound-guided fluid resuscitation may be useful and practical for septic shock patients within 7 days after admission as compared with EGDT, but it cannot reduce the 28-day mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation or length of ICU stay.