Meta-analysis of the effects of supplemental parenteral nutrition on prognosis of critically ill patients
-
摘要: 目的 应用荟萃分析方法比较补充性肠外营养(SPN)和肠内营养对重症监护病房(ICU)重症患者预后的影响。 方法 以"supplemental parenteral nutrition、parenteral nutrition、enteral nutrition、critically ill"为检索词检索《PubMed》《Embase》《Cochrane Library》《Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials》外文数据库,以"补充性肠外营养、肠外营养、肠内营养、重症"为检索词检索《中国生物医学文献服务系统》中文数据库,检索时限为建库至2018年12月,另检索谷歌学术作为补充,检索SPN和肠内营养支持治疗对ICU重症患者预后影响的随机对照研究文献。结局指标包括:感染率、抗感染时间、无抗生素时间、住ICU期间全因病死率、住院期间全因病死率、机械通气时间、住ICU时间、总住院时间。采用RevMan 5.3和Stata 14.0统计软件对符合标准的研究进行荟萃分析。 结果 最终纳入8篇文献共794例患者,包括接受SPN联合肠内营养治疗的SPN组患者387例和仅接受肠内营养的肠内营养组患者407例。纳入的8项研究存在的偏倚风险不确定。与肠内营养组比较,SPN组患者的感染率明显降低(相对危险度=0.79,95%置信区间=0.66~0.94,
P <0.01)。2组患者住ICU期间全因病死率、住院期间全因病死率、机械通气时间、住ICU时间、总住院时间相近。亚组分析显示,研究的偏倚风险和随访时间可能是机械通气时间异质性的来源。除住ICU期间全因病死率存在发表偏倚(P <0.05)外,其他结局指标均不存在发表偏倚(P >0.05)。 结论 SPN支持治疗虽然可降低ICU重症患者感染率,但对全因病死率、机械通气时间和住院时间无明显影响。Abstract: Objective To compare the effects of supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN) and enteral nutrition (EN) on prognosis of critically ill patients in intensive care unit (ICU) using meta-analysis. Methods Foreign language databases includingPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, andCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were retrieved with the search terms of " supplemental parenteral nutrition, parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, critically ill" , and Chinese databaseSinoMed database was retrieved with the search terms of "补充性肠外营养,肠外营养,肠内营养,重症" to obtain the publicly published randomized controlled trials about the effects of SPN and EN supportive treatment on prognosis of critically ill patients in ICU from the establishment of each database to December 2018. The Google Scholar was retrieved for supplement. The outcome indexes included the infection rate, anti-infection time, antibiotic-free time, ICU overall mortality, overall mortality during hospitalization, mechanical ventilation time, length of ICU stay, and length of hospital stay. RevMan 5.3 and Stata 14.0 statistical software were used to conduct a meta-analysis of eligible studies. Results A total of 794 patients were included in 8 studies, including 387 patients in SPN group who received SPN and EN and 407 patients in EN group who only received EN. The bias risks of the eight studies included were uncertain. Compared with that of EN group, the infection rate of patients in SPN group was significantly decreased (relative risk=0.79, 95% confidence interval=0.66-0.94,P <0.01). However, there were no statistically significant differences in ICU overall mortality, overall mortality during hospitalization, mechanical ventilation time, length of ICU stay, and length of hospital stay of patients between SPN group and EN group. The subgroup analysis showed that the risks of bias of studies and follow-up time might be sources of the heterogeneity of mechanical ventilation time. There was publication bias in ICU overall mortality (P <0.05), while no publication bias in the other outcome indexes (P >0.05). Conclusions SPN supportive treatment can decrease the infection rate of critically ill patients in ICU, but it has no obvious influences on overall mortality, mechanical ventilation time, and length of hospital stay.-
Key words:
- Parenteral nutrition /
- Intensive care /
- Infection /
- Meta-analysis
-
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数: 2283
- HTML全文浏览量: 9
- PDF下载量: 15
- 被引次数: 0