CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Double kissing crush in left main coronary bifurcation lesions: A crushing blow to the rival stenting techniques In-Hospital Costs and Costs of Complications of Chronic Total Occlusion Angioplasty Insights From the OPEN-CTO Registry Improving the Design of Future PCI Trials for Stable Coronary Artery Disease: JACC State-of-the-Art Review Chronic Kidney Disease and Coronary Artery Disease Diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance for the detection of coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis Drug-eluting balloons in coronary interventions: the quiet revolution? Left Ventricular Assist Devices: Synergistic Model Between Technology and Medicine Catheterization Laboratory Considerations During the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic: From the ACC’s Interventional Council and SCAI Classification of Deaths in Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns Ejection Fraction Pros and Cons: JACC State-of-the-Art Review
|<<... 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 ...>>|

Review ArticleVolume 391, No. 10131, p1693–1705, 28 April 2018

JOURNAL：Lancet. Article Link

Mortality and morbidity in acutely ill adults treated with liberal versus conservative oxygen therapy (IOTA): a systematic review and meta-analysis

DK Chu, LH-Y Kim, PJ Young et al. Keywords: liberal oxygen therapy; supplemental oxygen; conservative oxygen strategy; mortality; morbidity

ABSTRACT

Background - Supplemental oxygen is often administered liberally to acutely ill adults, but the credibility of the evidence for this practice is unclear. We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of liberal versus conservative oxygen therapy in acutely ill adults.


Methods - In the Improving Oxygen Therapy in Acute-illness (IOTA) systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, HealthSTAR, LILACS, PapersFirst, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry from inception to Oct 25, 2017, for randomised controlled trials comparing liberal and conservative oxygen therapy in acutely ill adults (aged ≥18 years). Studies limited to patients with chronic respiratory diseases or psychiatric disease, patients on extracorporeal life support, or patients treated with hyperbaric oxygen therapy or elective surgery were excluded. We screened studies and extracted summary estimates independently and in duplicate. We also extracted individual patient-level data from survival curves. The main outcomes were mortality (in-hospital, at 30 days, and at longest follow-up) and morbidity (disability at longest follow-up, risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia, any hospital-acquired infection, and length of hospital stay) assessed by random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed quality of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017065697.

Findings - 25 randomised controlled trials enrolled 16 037 patients with sepsis, critical illness, stroke, trauma, myocardial infarction, or cardiac arrest, and patients who had emergency surgery. Compared with a conservative oxygen strategy, a liberal oxygen strategy (median baseline saturation of peripheral oxygen [SpO2] across trials, 96% [range 94–99%, IQR 96–98]) increased mortality in-hospital (relative risk [RR] 1·21, 95% CI 1·03–1·43, I2=0%, high quality), at 30 days (RR 1·14, 95% CI 1·01–1·29, I2=0%, high quality), and at longest follow-up (RR 1·10, 95% CI 1·00–1·20, I2=0%, high quality). Morbidity outcomes were similar between groups. Findings were robust to trial sequential, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses.

Interpretation - In acutely ill adults, high-quality evidence shows that liberal oxygen therapy increases mortality without improving other patient-important outcomes. Supplemental oxygen might become unfavourable above an SpO2 range of 94–96%. These results support the conservative administration of oxygen therapy.

Funding - None.
>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 注册

> CBS 2019 会议日程

> CBS 2019 学术征集

> CBS 2019 热点

 CBSMD

> CBSMD 网站注册

> 教育中心

> 荐读文献

> Top 10 阅读文献

> 文献导读
CBS 2019 CBS 2019 主席团 教育中心 科研动态
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top