Efficacy of hypertonic saline and mannitol in patients with traumatic brain injury and cerebral edema: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 0.7 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Umer Iqbal, Aashish Kumar, Syed Ali Arsal, Muhammad Ashir Shafique, Shafin Bin Amin, Adarsh Raja, Rabbia Aqeel, Sameeka Waqas
{"title":"Efficacy of hypertonic saline and mannitol in patients with traumatic brain injury and cerebral edema: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Umer Iqbal, Aashish Kumar, Syed Ali Arsal, Muhammad Ashir Shafique, Shafin Bin Amin, Adarsh Raja, Rabbia Aqeel, Sameeka Waqas","doi":"10.1186/s41984-023-00233-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background Traumatic brain injury has a crippling impact on sufferers’ quality of life, and numerous therapy techniques are being researched to address this problem. In this study, we compared the superiority of HS against mannitol as one such element of treating TBI patients. Objective To compare the efficacy of hypertonic saline and mannitol and demonstrate superiority of one group over the other. Method Our meta-analysis included only randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy of mannitol and hypertonic saline in the treatment of traumatic brain injury. The literature search was done using a variety of databases, like Google Scholar, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library. From each of the included RCTs, accurate data extraction, bias risk assessment, and statistical analysis were carried out. Result There are 748 patients among the 15 RCTs. Our primary outcomes are mortality and functional outcomes, and our secondary outcomes include treatment failure, osmolality, intracerebral pressure (ICP), cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), serum sodium (Na), partial pressure of oxygen in brain tissue (PBTO2), duration of elevated ICP, mean arterial pressure, hematocrit level, and central venous pressure. The comparison showed non-significant results for mortality (RR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.49–1.08; p = 0.12) and functional outcome (RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.74–1.80; p = 0.53). HS is linked to higher Na levels (RR = 4.55, 95% CI 1.34–7.76, P = 0.005, I2 = 96%). Despite performing a sensitivity analysis due to the heterogeneities in our various outcomes, the findings were still unreliable. Conclusion Our study revealed inconsequential trends for HS and mannitol, and no conclusion was made. We believe the two medications to be equally effective, but there is still opportunity for improvement as more studies are carried out. Eventually, a conclusive decision can be reached in the future.","PeriodicalId":72881,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian journal of neurosurgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian journal of neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41984-023-00233-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Background Traumatic brain injury has a crippling impact on sufferers’ quality of life, and numerous therapy techniques are being researched to address this problem. In this study, we compared the superiority of HS against mannitol as one such element of treating TBI patients. Objective To compare the efficacy of hypertonic saline and mannitol and demonstrate superiority of one group over the other. Method Our meta-analysis included only randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy of mannitol and hypertonic saline in the treatment of traumatic brain injury. The literature search was done using a variety of databases, like Google Scholar, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library. From each of the included RCTs, accurate data extraction, bias risk assessment, and statistical analysis were carried out. Result There are 748 patients among the 15 RCTs. Our primary outcomes are mortality and functional outcomes, and our secondary outcomes include treatment failure, osmolality, intracerebral pressure (ICP), cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), serum sodium (Na), partial pressure of oxygen in brain tissue (PBTO2), duration of elevated ICP, mean arterial pressure, hematocrit level, and central venous pressure. The comparison showed non-significant results for mortality (RR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.49–1.08; p = 0.12) and functional outcome (RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.74–1.80; p = 0.53). HS is linked to higher Na levels (RR = 4.55, 95% CI 1.34–7.76, P = 0.005, I2 = 96%). Despite performing a sensitivity analysis due to the heterogeneities in our various outcomes, the findings were still unreliable. Conclusion Our study revealed inconsequential trends for HS and mannitol, and no conclusion was made. We believe the two medications to be equally effective, but there is still opportunity for improvement as more studies are carried out. Eventually, a conclusive decision can be reached in the future.
高渗盐水和甘露醇治疗外伤性脑损伤和脑水肿的疗效:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析
背景外伤性脑损伤对患者的生活质量有严重的影响,人们正在研究许多治疗技术来解决这个问题。在这项研究中,我们比较了HS与甘露醇作为治疗TBI患者的一种元素的优势。目的比较高渗盐水与甘露醇的治疗效果,探讨两者的优越性。方法我们的荟萃分析只包括随机对照试验,比较甘露醇和高渗盐水治疗外伤性脑损伤的疗效。文献检索是使用各种数据库完成的,如Google Scholar, PubMed和Cochrane图书馆。对每个纳入的rct进行准确的数据提取、偏倚风险评估和统计分析。结果15例随机对照试验共748例患者。我们的主要结局是死亡率和功能结局,次要结局包括治疗失败、渗透压、颅内压(ICP)、脑灌注压(CPP)、血清钠(Na)、脑组织氧分压(PBTO2)、ICP升高持续时间、平均动脉压、红细胞压积水平和中心静脉压。比较显示死亡率无显著差异(RR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.49-1.08;p = 0.12)和功能结局(RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.74-1.80;P = 0.53)。HS与较高的Na水平有关(RR = 4.55, 95% CI 1.34-7.76, P = 0.005, I2 = 96%)。尽管由于各种结果的异质性,我们进行了敏感性分析,但结果仍然不可靠。结论本研究揭示了HS与甘露醇的不相关趋势,未得出结论。我们相信这两种药物同样有效,但随着更多研究的开展,仍有改进的机会。最终,一个决定性的决定可以在未来达成。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
32 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信