出现败血症的终末期肾病患者的液体复苏困境:系统回顾与元分析》。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-25 DOI:10.1177/08850666241261673
Georges Khattar, Khalil El Gharib, Ngowari Pokima, Juliet Kotys, Vineeth Kandala, Jonathan Mina, Fadi Haddadin, Saif Abu Baker, Samer Asmar, Taqi Rizvi, Matthew Flamenbaum, Dany Elsayegh, Michel Chalhoub, Halim El Hage, Suzanne El Sayegh
{"title":"出现败血症的终末期肾病患者的液体复苏困境:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Georges Khattar, Khalil El Gharib, Ngowari Pokima, Juliet Kotys, Vineeth Kandala, Jonathan Mina, Fadi Haddadin, Saif Abu Baker, Samer Asmar, Taqi Rizvi, Matthew Flamenbaum, Dany Elsayegh, Michel Chalhoub, Halim El Hage, Suzanne El Sayegh","doi":"10.1177/08850666241261673","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> This study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of guideline-directed fluid resuscitation (GDFR) compared with conservative fluid management in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients with sepsis by evaluating 90-day mortality and intubation rate. <b>Methods:</b> Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted across multiple databases using specific keywords and controlled vocabulary. The search strategy, implemented until October 1, 2023, aimed to identify studies examining fluid resuscitation in ESRD patients with sepsis. The review process was streamlined using Covidence software. A fourth reviewer resolved discrepancies in study inclusion. A random-effects model with the generic Mantel-Haenszel method was preferred for integrating odds ratios (ORs). Sensitivity analysis and publication bias analysis were performed. <b>Results:</b> Of the 1274 identified studies, 10 were selected for inclusion, examining 1184 patients, 593 of whom received GDFR. Four studies were selected to investigate the intubation rate, including 304 patients. No significant mortality or intubation rate difference was spotted between both groups [OR = 1.23; confidence interval (CI) = 0.92-1.65; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0% and OR = 1.91; CI = 0.91-4.04]. In most studies, sensitivity analysis using the leave-one-out approach revealed higher mortality and intubation rates. The Egger test results indicated no statistically significant publication bias across the included studies. <b>Conclusion:</b> Our research contradicts the common assumption about the effectiveness of GDFR for sepsis patients with ESRD. It suggests that this approach, while not superior to the conservative strategy, may potentially be harmful.</p>","PeriodicalId":16307,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1013-1022"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fluid Resuscitation Dilemma in End-stage Renal Disease Patients Presenting with Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Georges Khattar, Khalil El Gharib, Ngowari Pokima, Juliet Kotys, Vineeth Kandala, Jonathan Mina, Fadi Haddadin, Saif Abu Baker, Samer Asmar, Taqi Rizvi, Matthew Flamenbaum, Dany Elsayegh, Michel Chalhoub, Halim El Hage, Suzanne El Sayegh\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08850666241261673\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> This study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of guideline-directed fluid resuscitation (GDFR) compared with conservative fluid management in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients with sepsis by evaluating 90-day mortality and intubation rate. <b>Methods:</b> Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted across multiple databases using specific keywords and controlled vocabulary. The search strategy, implemented until October 1, 2023, aimed to identify studies examining fluid resuscitation in ESRD patients with sepsis. The review process was streamlined using Covidence software. A fourth reviewer resolved discrepancies in study inclusion. A random-effects model with the generic Mantel-Haenszel method was preferred for integrating odds ratios (ORs). Sensitivity analysis and publication bias analysis were performed. <b>Results:</b> Of the 1274 identified studies, 10 were selected for inclusion, examining 1184 patients, 593 of whom received GDFR. Four studies were selected to investigate the intubation rate, including 304 patients. No significant mortality or intubation rate difference was spotted between both groups [OR = 1.23; confidence interval (CI) = 0.92-1.65; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0% and OR = 1.91; CI = 0.91-4.04]. In most studies, sensitivity analysis using the leave-one-out approach revealed higher mortality and intubation rates. The Egger test results indicated no statistically significant publication bias across the included studies. <b>Conclusion:</b> Our research contradicts the common assumption about the effectiveness of GDFR for sepsis patients with ESRD. It suggests that this approach, while not superior to the conservative strategy, may potentially be harmful.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16307,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1013-1022\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08850666241261673\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08850666241261673","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究背景本研究旨在通过评估脓毒症终末期肾病(ESRD)患者的 90 天死亡率和插管率,研究指导性液体复苏(GDFR)与保守液体管理相比的安全性和有效性。方法:按照 PRISMA 指南,使用特定关键词和控制词汇在多个数据库中进行了系统性综述。该检索策略的实施时间截止到 2023 年 10 月 1 日,目的是确定对患有脓毒症的 ESRD 患者进行液体复苏的研究。使用 Covidence 软件简化了审稿流程。第四位审稿人负责解决研究纳入方面的差异。采用通用 Mantel-Haenszel 法的随机效应模型对几率比 (OR) 进行整合。进行了敏感性分析和发表偏倚分析。研究结果在已确定的 1274 项研究中,有 10 项被选中纳入,共研究了 1184 名患者,其中 593 人接受了 GDFR。有四项研究被选中调查插管率,包括 304 名患者。两组患者的死亡率或插管率无明显差异[OR = 1.23;置信区间 (CI) = 0.92-1.65;I2 = 0%,OR = 1.91;CI = 0.91-4.04]。在大多数研究中,使用 "留一剔除 "方法进行的敏感性分析显示死亡率和插管率较高。Egger 检验结果表明,所纳入的研究在统计学上没有明显的发表偏倚。结论我们的研究与关于脓毒症合并 ESRD 患者使用 GDFR 有效性的普遍假设相矛盾。研究表明,这种方法并不比保守策略优越,反而可能有害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Fluid Resuscitation Dilemma in End-stage Renal Disease Patients Presenting with Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: This study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of guideline-directed fluid resuscitation (GDFR) compared with conservative fluid management in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients with sepsis by evaluating 90-day mortality and intubation rate. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted across multiple databases using specific keywords and controlled vocabulary. The search strategy, implemented until October 1, 2023, aimed to identify studies examining fluid resuscitation in ESRD patients with sepsis. The review process was streamlined using Covidence software. A fourth reviewer resolved discrepancies in study inclusion. A random-effects model with the generic Mantel-Haenszel method was preferred for integrating odds ratios (ORs). Sensitivity analysis and publication bias analysis were performed. Results: Of the 1274 identified studies, 10 were selected for inclusion, examining 1184 patients, 593 of whom received GDFR. Four studies were selected to investigate the intubation rate, including 304 patients. No significant mortality or intubation rate difference was spotted between both groups [OR = 1.23; confidence interval (CI) = 0.92-1.65; I2 = 0% and OR = 1.91; CI = 0.91-4.04]. In most studies, sensitivity analysis using the leave-one-out approach revealed higher mortality and intubation rates. The Egger test results indicated no statistically significant publication bias across the included studies. Conclusion: Our research contradicts the common assumption about the effectiveness of GDFR for sepsis patients with ESRD. It suggests that this approach, while not superior to the conservative strategy, may potentially be harmful.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
3.20%
发文量
107
期刊介绍: Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JIC) is a peer-reviewed bi-monthly journal offering medical and surgical clinicians in adult and pediatric intensive care state-of-the-art, broad-based analytic reviews and updates, original articles, reports of large clinical series, techniques and procedures, topic-specific electronic resources, book reviews, and editorials on all aspects of intensive/critical/coronary care.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信