CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Frailty in Older Adults Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement: The FRAILTY-AVR Study New-onset atrial fibrillation after PCI and CABG for left main disease: insights from the EXCEL trial and additional studies Polymer-based or Polymer-free Stents in Patients at High Bleeding Risk 2019 Guidelines on Diabetes, Pre-Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases developed in collaboration with the EASD ESC Clinical Practice Guidelines Safety and efficacy of the bioabsorbable polymer everolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents in high-risk patients undergoing PCI: TWILIGHT-SYNERGY Impact of SYNTAX Score on 10-Year Outcomes After Revascularization for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Prior Cerebrovascular Disease: Results From the EXCEL Trial Inhibition of Platelet Aggregation After Coronary Stenting in Patients Receiving Oral Anticoagulation Adenosine and adenosine receptor-mediated action in coronary microcirculation A Platelet Function Modulator of Thrombin Activation Is Causally Linked to Cardiovascular Disease and Affects PAR4 Receptor Signaling

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.