重症患者下肢肌肉超声检查的方法和临床应用:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 5.7 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Roberto Venco, Alessandro Artale, Paolo Formenti, Cristian Deana, Giovanni Mistraletti, Michele Umbrello
{"title":"重症患者下肢肌肉超声检查的方法和临床应用:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Roberto Venco, Alessandro Artale, Paolo Formenti, Cristian Deana, Giovanni Mistraletti, Michele Umbrello","doi":"10.1186/s13613-024-01395-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Reduced muscle mass upon admission and development of muscle wasting are frequent in critically ill patients, and linked to unfavorable outcomes. Muscle ultrasound is a promising instrument for evaluating muscle mass. We summarized the findings of lower limb muscle ultrasound values and investigated how the muscle ultrasound parameters of the examination or the patient characteristics influence the results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of lower limb ultrasound critically ill adults. PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PEDro and Web of Science were searched. PRISMA guidelines were followed, and studies evaluated with the appropriate NIH quality assessment tool. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the values at admission, short and long follow-up during ICU stay, and the association between baseline values and patient characteristics or ultrasound parameters was investigated with a meta-regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-six studies (3839 patients) were included. The main muscles investigated were rectus femoris cross-sectional area (RF-CSA, n = 33/66), quadriceps muscle layer thickness (n = 32/66), and rectus femoris thickness (n = 19/66). Significant differences were found in the anatomical landmark and ultrasound settings. At ICU admission, RF-CSA ranged from 1.1 [0.73-1.47] to 6.36 [5.45-7.27] cm<sup>2</sup> (pooled average 2.83 [2.29-3.37] cm<sup>2</sup>) with high heterogeneity among studies (I<sup>2</sup> = 98.43%). Higher age, higher BMI, more distal landmark and the use of probe compression were associated with lower baseline muscle mass.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Measurements of muscle mass using ultrasound varied with reference to patient characteristics, patient position, anatomical landmarks used for measurement, and the level of compression applied by the probe; this constrains the external validity of the results and highlights the need for standardization.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42023420376.</p>","PeriodicalId":7966,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Intensive Care","volume":"14 1","pages":"163"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11499498/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methodologies and clinical applications of lower limb muscle ultrasound in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Roberto Venco, Alessandro Artale, Paolo Formenti, Cristian Deana, Giovanni Mistraletti, Michele Umbrello\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13613-024-01395-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Reduced muscle mass upon admission and development of muscle wasting are frequent in critically ill patients, and linked to unfavorable outcomes. Muscle ultrasound is a promising instrument for evaluating muscle mass. We summarized the findings of lower limb muscle ultrasound values and investigated how the muscle ultrasound parameters of the examination or the patient characteristics influence the results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of lower limb ultrasound critically ill adults. PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PEDro and Web of Science were searched. PRISMA guidelines were followed, and studies evaluated with the appropriate NIH quality assessment tool. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the values at admission, short and long follow-up during ICU stay, and the association between baseline values and patient characteristics or ultrasound parameters was investigated with a meta-regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-six studies (3839 patients) were included. The main muscles investigated were rectus femoris cross-sectional area (RF-CSA, n = 33/66), quadriceps muscle layer thickness (n = 32/66), and rectus femoris thickness (n = 19/66). Significant differences were found in the anatomical landmark and ultrasound settings. At ICU admission, RF-CSA ranged from 1.1 [0.73-1.47] to 6.36 [5.45-7.27] cm<sup>2</sup> (pooled average 2.83 [2.29-3.37] cm<sup>2</sup>) with high heterogeneity among studies (I<sup>2</sup> = 98.43%). Higher age, higher BMI, more distal landmark and the use of probe compression were associated with lower baseline muscle mass.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Measurements of muscle mass using ultrasound varied with reference to patient characteristics, patient position, anatomical landmarks used for measurement, and the level of compression applied by the probe; this constrains the external validity of the results and highlights the need for standardization.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42023420376.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Intensive Care\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"163\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11499498/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Intensive Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-024-01395-y\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-024-01395-y","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:重症患者入院时肌肉质量下降和肌肉萎缩是常见现象,并与不良预后有关。肌肉超声是一种很有前途的评估肌肉质量的仪器。我们总结了下肢肌肉超声值的研究结果,并研究了肌肉超声检查参数或患者特征对结果的影响:重症成人下肢超声研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析。检索了 PubMed、CINAHL、Embase、PEDro 和 Web of Science。研究遵循 PRISMA 指南,并使用适当的 NIH 质量评估工具对研究进行评估。通过荟萃分析比较了入院时、ICU住院期间的短期和长期随访值,并通过荟萃回归研究了基线值与患者特征或超声参数之间的关联:结果:共纳入 66 项研究(3839 名患者)。研究的主要肌肉为股直肌横截面积(RF-CSA,n = 33/66)、股四头肌肌层厚度(n = 32/66)和股直肌厚度(n = 19/66)。解剖地标和超声设置存在显著差异。在 ICU 入院时,RF-CSA 的范围为 1.1 [0.73-1.47] 至 6.36 [5.45-7.27] 平方厘米(汇总平均值为 2.83 [2.29-3.37] 平方厘米),不同研究之间存在高度异质性(I2 = 98.43%)。年龄越大、体重指数越高、地标越远以及使用探头加压与基线肌肉质量越低有关:结论:使用超声波测量肌肉质量因患者特征、患者体位、测量时使用的解剖标志物以及探头压迫程度而异;这限制了结果的外部有效性,并强调了标准化的必要性:研究注册:PREMCORD42023420376。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Methodologies and clinical applications of lower limb muscle ultrasound in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Reduced muscle mass upon admission and development of muscle wasting are frequent in critically ill patients, and linked to unfavorable outcomes. Muscle ultrasound is a promising instrument for evaluating muscle mass. We summarized the findings of lower limb muscle ultrasound values and investigated how the muscle ultrasound parameters of the examination or the patient characteristics influence the results.

Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of lower limb ultrasound critically ill adults. PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PEDro and Web of Science were searched. PRISMA guidelines were followed, and studies evaluated with the appropriate NIH quality assessment tool. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the values at admission, short and long follow-up during ICU stay, and the association between baseline values and patient characteristics or ultrasound parameters was investigated with a meta-regression.

Results: Sixty-six studies (3839 patients) were included. The main muscles investigated were rectus femoris cross-sectional area (RF-CSA, n = 33/66), quadriceps muscle layer thickness (n = 32/66), and rectus femoris thickness (n = 19/66). Significant differences were found in the anatomical landmark and ultrasound settings. At ICU admission, RF-CSA ranged from 1.1 [0.73-1.47] to 6.36 [5.45-7.27] cm2 (pooled average 2.83 [2.29-3.37] cm2) with high heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 98.43%). Higher age, higher BMI, more distal landmark and the use of probe compression were associated with lower baseline muscle mass.

Conclusions: Measurements of muscle mass using ultrasound varied with reference to patient characteristics, patient position, anatomical landmarks used for measurement, and the level of compression applied by the probe; this constrains the external validity of the results and highlights the need for standardization.

Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42023420376.

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
Annals of Intensive Care
Annals of Intensive Care CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
14.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
107
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Intensive Care is an online peer-reviewed journal that publishes high-quality review articles and original research papers in the field of intensive care medicine. It targets critical care providers including attending physicians, fellows, residents, nurses, and physiotherapists, who aim to enhance their knowledge and provide optimal care for their patients. The journal's articles are included in various prestigious databases such as CAS, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, OCLC, PubMed, PubMed Central, Science Citation Index Expanded, SCOPUS, and Summon by Serial Solutions.
×
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