Page 107 - 《中国药房》2024年3期
P. 107

·循证药学·


          咪达唑仑与右美托咪定/丙泊酚对机械通气危重症患者镇静治疗
          有效性和安全性的Meta分析
                                                      Δ


                           1
                                            1
                                   1
                                                             1 #
                 1*
          吴佳骞 ,苏 丹 ,邵腾皓 ,于占彪 ,赵聪聪 ,王迎鑫 (1. 河北大学附属医院重症医学科,河北 保定
                                                    2
          071030;2.河北医科大学附属第四医院重症医学科,石家庄 050035)
          中图分类号  R971+.3;R614.2+1      文献标志码  A      文章编号  1001-0408(2024)03-0353-08
          DOI  10.6039/j.issn.1001-0408.2024.03.16
          摘  要  目的  系统评价咪达唑仑与右美托咪定/丙泊酚在机械通气危重症患者镇静治疗方面的有效性及安全性,为临床治疗提
          供循证参考。方法  计算机检索PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、Cochrane图书馆、临床试验资料库(Clinical trials.gov)、中国期刊
          全文数据库、中文科技期刊数据库、万方数据库、中国生物医学文献数据库,检索时限均为建库起至2023年3月31日,收集咪达唑
          仑与右美托咪定/丙泊酚在机械通气危重症患者镇静方面的疗效及安全性数据。对符合纳入标准的临床研究进行资料提取后,采
          用RevMan 5.3统计软件进行Meta分析。结果  共纳入31篇文献,总计2 765例患者。Meta分析结果显示,咪达唑仑组患者机械通
          气时间[MD=14.13,95%CI(13.75,14.52),P<0.000 01]、重症监护病房住院时间[MD=0.92,95%CI(0.54,1.30),P<0.000 01]较右
          美托咪定/丙泊酚组更长;咪达唑仑组患者心动过缓发生率较右美托咪定/丙泊酚组更低[OR=0.60,95%CI(0.41,0.90),P=0.01],
          但两组低血压发生率[OR=0.69,95%CI(0.47,1.01),P=0.06]差异无统计学意义;咪达唑仑组患者谵妄[OR=3.88,95%CI(2.74,
          5.49),P<0.000 01]、呼吸机相关性肺炎[OR=2.32,95%CI(1.19,4.51),P=0.01]、呼吸抑制[OR=5.70,95%CI(3.09,10.52),P<
          0.000 01]发生率较右美托咪定/丙泊酚组更高。结论  与右美托咪定/丙泊酚类药物比较,咪达唑仑在有效性方面增加了患者的机
          械通气时间和重症监护病房住院时间,在安全性方面增加了谵妄、肺部并发症的发生风险,但对心血管的影响更小。
          关键词  咪达唑仑;右美托咪定;丙泊酚;镇静;机械通气;危重症患者;疗效;安全性

          Meta-analysis  of  efficacy  and  safety  of  sedative  therapy  with  midazolam  and  dexmedetomidine/propofol  in
          critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation
                                                         1
          WU Jiaqian ,SU Dan ,SHAO Tenghao ,YU Zhanbiao ,ZHAO Congcong ,WANG Yingxin(1. Dept. of Intensive
                                            1
                    1
                                                                                         1
                            1
                                                                          2
          Care Medicine, the Affiliated Hospital of Hebei University, Hebei Baoding 071030, China;2. Dept. of Intensive
          Care Medicine, the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang 050035, China)
          ABSTRACT   OBJECTIVE  To  systematically  evaluate  the  efficacy  and  safety  of  midazolam  and  dexmedetomidine/propofol  for
          the  sedation  of  critically  ill  patients  undergoing  mechanical  ventilation,  and  to  provide  evidence-based  reference  for  clinical
          treatment.  METHODS  Retrieved  from  PubMed,  Embase,  Web  of  Science,  Cochrane  Library,  Clinical  trials.  gov,  China  Journal
          Full  Text  Database,  Chinese  Science  and  Technology  Journal  Database,  Wanfang  database  and  China  Biomedical  Literature
          Database,  the  data  on  the  efficacy  and  safety  of  midazolam  and  dexmetomidine/propofol  for  the  sedation  of  critically  ill  patients
          undergoing  mechanical  ventilation  were  collected  from  the  establishment  of  the  database  to  March  31,  2023. After  extracting  data
          from  clinical  studies  that  met  the  inclusion  criteria,  the  meta-analysis  was  conducted  by  using  the  RevMan  5.3  statistical  software.
          RESULTS  A  total  of  31  literature  were  included,  with  a  total  of  2  765  patients.  Results  of  meta-analysis  showed  that  the
          mechanical  ventilation  time  [MD=14.13,  95%CI (13.75,  14.52),  P<0.000  01]  and  the  length  of  hospitalization  in  the  intensive
          care  unit  [MD=0.92,  95%CI (0.54,  1.30),  P<0.000  01]  of  patients  in  the  midazolam  group  was  longer  than  dexmedetomidine/
          propofol  group. The  incidence  of  bradycardia  in  midazolam  group  was  lower  dexmedetomidine/propofol  group  [OR=0.60,  95%CI
         (0.41, 0.90), P=0.01], but there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of hypotension between the two groups
          [OR=0.69, 95%CI (0.47, 1.01), P=0.06]. The incidence of delirium [OR=3.88, 95%CI (2.74, 5.49), P<0.000 01], ventilator-
                                                             associated  pneumonia  [OR=2.32,  95%CI (1.19,  4.51),  P=
             Δ 基金项目 河北省科技计划项目(No.2022HBKJ00030);河北省          0.01],  and  respiratory  depression  [OR=5.70,  95%CI (3.09,
          卫生健康委医学科学研究课题(No.20211786)                         10.52),  P<0.000  01]  in  midazolam  group  were  higher  than
             *第一作者 主治医师,硕士。研究方向:脓毒症、机械通气。
                                                             dexmedetomidine/propofol  group.  CONCLUSIONS  Compared
          E-mail:ARDS2023@163.com
             #  通信作者 主 治 医 师 ,硕 士 。 研 究 方 向 :脓 毒 症 。 E-mail:  with  dexmedetomidine/propofol,  midazolam  increases  patients’
          tapse123@163.com                                   mechanical ventilation time and the length of hospitalization in


          中国药房  2024年第35卷第3期                                                 China Pharmacy  2024 Vol. 35  No. 3    · 353 ·
   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112