CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Sudden Cardiac Arrest Survivorship: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Defining High Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Consensus Document From the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk Quantitative Assessment of Coronary Microvascular Function: Dynamic Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography, Positron Emission Tomography, Ultrasound, Computed Tomography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Transverse partial stent ablation with rotational atherectomy for suboptimal culotte technique in left main stem bifurcation Percutaneous Repair or Medical Treatment for Secondary Mitral Regurgitation Use of High-Risk Coronary Atherosclerotic Plaque Detection for Risk Stratification of Patients With Stable Chest Pain: A Secondary Analysis of the PROMISE Randomized Clinical Trial Cardiac MRI Endpoints in Myocardial Infarction Experimental and Clinical Trials JACC Scientific Expert Panel Rare Genetic Variants Associated With Sudden Cardiac Death in Adults The performance of non-invasive tests to rule-in and rule-out significant coronary artery stenosis in patients with stable angina: a meta-analysis focused on post-test disease probability Influence of LDL-Cholesterol Lowering on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus Undergoing Coronary Revascularization

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.