Effect of conservative and conventional oxygen therapy on the prognosis of critically ill patients: a Meta-analysis / 中华危重病急救医学

ABSTRACT

Objective? To?compare?the?efficacy?and?safety?of?conservative?and?conventional?oxygen?therapy?in?critically?ill?patients.? Methods? Relevant?literature?and?randomized?controlled?trials?(RCTs)?about?the?effect?of?conservative?oxygen?therapy?and?conventional?oxygen?therapy?on?the?prognosis?of?intensive?care?unit?(ICU)?critically?ill?patients?was?searched?from?CNKI,?VIP,?Wanfang?Data,?Chinese?Clinical?Trial?Registry,?PubMed,?Embase,?the?Cochrane?Library,?and?ClinicalTrials.gov?by?using?the?keywords?"critically?ill?patients,?conservative?oxygen?therapy,?liberal?oxygen?therapy,?conventional?oxygen?therapy,?mortality"?until?October?30th?in?2018.?The?main?outcome?indicators?were?short-term?mortality?(28-day?mortality?or?ICU?mortality);?secondary?indicators?were?90-day?mortality,?duration?of?mechanical?ventilation,?the?length?of?ICU?stay,?total?hospitalization?time,?new?infection?rate?in?ICU?and?incidence?of?new?organ?dysfunction?in?ICU.?In?the?conservative?oxygen?therapy?group,?the?aim?of?pulse?oxygen?saturation?(SpO2)?was?0.90-0.92?or?the?arterial?partial?oxygen?pressure?(PaO2)?was?70-100?mmHg?(1?mmHg?=?0.133?kPa),?while?in?conventional?oxygen?therapy?group?SpO2?>?0.96?or?PaO2?>?150?mmHg.?Literature?search,?quality?evaluation?and?data?extraction?was?conducted?independently?by?the?two?authors.?The?quality?of?these?study?was?evaluated?using?Cochrane?risk?deviation?assessment?tool,?and?the?relevant?data?were?analyzed?using?RevMan?5.3?software.? Results? Four?studies?were?included?in?the?analysis,?these?studies?were?assessed?as?moderate?to?high?quality?studies.?A?total?of?1?076?patients?were?enrolled,?with?539?in??the?conservative?oxygen?therapy?group?and?537?in?the?conventional?oxygen?therapy?group.?Compared?with?conventional? oxygen?therapy?group,?short-term?mortality?[odds?ratio?(OR)?=?0.66,?95%?confidence?interval?(95%CI)?=?0.50-0.87,?P?=?0.003]?and?the?incidence?of?new?organ?dysfunction?in?ICU?(OR?=?0.64,?95%CI?=?0.41-0.99,?P?=?0.04)?were?significantly?decreased?in?conservative?oxygen?therapy?group,?duration?of?mechanical?ventilation?was?significantly?prolonged?[standardized?mean?difference?(SMD)?=?17.17,?95%CI?=?7.14-27.21, P?=?0.000?8].?But?there?was?no?significantly?difference?in?90-day?mortality?(OR?=?0.83,?95%CI?=?0.59-1.17,?P?=?0.28),?new?infection?rate?in?ICU?(OR?=?0.90,??95%CI?=?0.66-1.21,?P?=?0.47),?the?length?of?ICU?stay?(SMD?=?-0.22,?95%CI?=?-1.02-0.59,?P?=?0.60)?and?total?hospitalization?time?(SMD?=?1.44,?95%CI?=?-1.43-4.31,?P?=?0.32)?between?the?two?groups.? Conclusion? Compared?with?conventional?oxygen?therapy,?conservative?oxygen?therapy?can?reduce?short-term?mortality?and?the?incidence?of?organ?dysfunction?in?critically?ill?patients,?but?cannot?decrease?the?length?of?ICU?stay?and?total?hospitalization?time.