CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Post-Stroke Cardiovascular Complications and Neurogenic Cardiac Injury: JACC State-of-the-Art Review Cardiac Troponin Elevation in Patients Without a Specific Diagnosis 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure Effects of Aspirin for Primary Prevention in Persons with Diabetes Mellitus Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction Hs-cTroponins for the prediction of recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with established CHD - A comparative analysis from the KAROLA study Interleukin-1 Beta as a Target for Atherosclerosis Therapy: Biological Basis of CANTOS and Beyond Dynamic atrioventricular delay programming improves ventricular electrical synchronization as evaluated by 3D vectorcardiography Randomized Comparison of Ridaforolimus-Eluting and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents 2-Year Clinical Outcomes: From the BIONICS and NIREUS Trials Canadian Multicenter Chronic Total Occlusion Registry: Ten-Year Follow-Up Results of Chronic Total Occlusion Revascularization
|<<... 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ...>>|

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