Dataset Information

Antithrombin III in critically ill patients: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the benefits and harms of antithrombin III in critically ill patients.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Data sources

CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, International Web of Science, LILACS, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and CINHAL (to November 2006); hand search of reference lists, contact with authors and experts, and search of registers of ongoing trials.

Review methods

Two reviewers independently selected parallel group randomised clinical trials comparing antithrombin with placebo or no intervention and extracted data related to study methods, interventions, outcomes, bias risk, and adverse events. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Trials in any type of critically ill patients in intensive care were eligible. All trials, irrespective of blinding or language status, that compared any antithrombin III regimen with no intervention or placebo were included. Trials were considered to be at low risk of bias if they had adequate randomisation procedure, blinding, and used intention to treat analysis. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated with fixed and random effects models according to heterogeneity.

Main outcome measures

Mortality, length of stay in intensive care or hospital, quality of life, severity of sepsis, respiratory failure, duration of mechanical ventilation, incidence of surgical intervention, intervention effect among various populations, and adverse events (such as bleeding).

Results

20 trials randomly assigning 3458 patients met inclusion criteria. Eight trials had low risk of bias. Compared with placebo or no intervention, antithrombin III did not reduce overall mortality (relative risk 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.03). No subgroup analyses on risk of bias, populations of patients, or with and without adjuvant heparin yielded significant results. Antithrombin III increased the risk of bleeding events (1.52, 1.30 to 1.78). Heterogeneity was observed in only a few analyses.

Conclusion

Antithrombin III cannot be recommended for critically ill patients based on the available evidence.

SUBMITTER: Afshari A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2137061 | biostudies-literature | 2007 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Antithrombin III in critically ill patients: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Afshari Arash A Wetterslev Jørn J Brok Jesper J Møller Ann A

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20071123 7632

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the benefits and harms of antithrombin III in critically ill patients.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.<h4>Data sources</h4>CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, International Web of Science, LILACS, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and CINHAL (to November 2006); hand search of reference lists, contact with authors and experts, and search of registers of ongoing trials.<h4>Review methods</h4>Two reviewers independently selected ...[more]

PMID: 18037615

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIt is standard of care to provide sedation to critically ill patients to reduce anxiety, discomfort and promote tolerance of mechanical ventilation. Given that sedatives can have differing effects based on a variety of patient and pharmacological characteristics, treatment approaches are largely based on targeting the level of sedation. The benefits of differing levels of sedation must be balanced against potential adverse effects including haemodynamic instability, causing delirium, delaying awakening and prolonging the time of mechanical ventilation and intensive care stay. This systematic review with meta-analysis aims to investigate the current evidence and compare the effects of differing sedation levels in adult critically ill patients.Methods and analysesWe will conduct a systematic review based on searches of preidentified major medical databases (eg, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify trials meeting inclusion criteria. We will include randomised clinical trials comparing any degree of sedation with no sedation and lighter sedation with deeper sedation for critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit. We will include aggregate data meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses. Risk of bias will be assessed with domains based on the Cochrane risk of bias tool. An eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed using Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.Ethics and disseminationNo formal approval or review of ethics is required as individual patient data will not be included. This systematic review has the potential to highlight (1) whether one should believe sedation to be beneficial, harmful or neither in critically ill adults; (2) the existing knowledge gaps and (3) whether the recommendations from guidelines and daily clinical practice are supported by current evidence. These results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Project description:IntroductionCritical illness is characterized by oxidative stress, which is a major promoter of systemic inflammation and organ failure due to excessive free radical production, depletion of antioxidant defenses, or both. We hypothesized that exogenous supplementation of trace elements and vitamins could restore antioxidant status, improving clinical outcomes.MethodsWe searched computerized databases, reference lists of pertinent articles and personal files from 1980 to 2011. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in critically ill adult patients that evaluated relevant clinical outcomes with antioxidant micronutrients (vitamins and trace elements) supplementation versus placebo.ResultsA total of 21 RCTs met inclusion criteria. When the results of these studies were statistically aggregated (n = 20), combined antioxidants were associated with a significant reduction in mortality (risk ratio (RR) = 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.93, P = 0.002); a significant reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation (weighed mean difference in days = -0.67, 95% CI -1.22 to -0.13, P = 0.02); a trend towards a reduction in infections (RR= 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.02, P = 0.08); and no overall effect on ICU or hospital length of stay (LOS). Furthermore, antioxidants were associated with a significant reduction in overall mortality among patients with higher risk of death (>10% mortality in control group) (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92, P = 0.003) whereas there was no significant effect observed for trials of patients with a lower mortality in the control group (RR = 1.14, 95% 0.72 to 1.82, P = 0.57). Trials using more than 500 ?g per day of selenium showed a trend towards a lower mortality (RR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.02, P = 0.07) whereas trials using doses lower than 500 ?g had no effect on mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.33, P = 0.75).ConclusionsSupplementation with high dose trace elements and vitamins may improve outcomes of critically ill patients, particularly those at high risk of death.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the relation between delirium in critically ill patients and their outcomes in the short term (in the intensive care unit and in hospital) and after discharge from hospital.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of published studies.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PsychINFO, with no language restrictions, up to 1 January 2015.Eligibility criteria for selection studiesReports were eligible for inclusion if they were prospective observational cohorts or clinical trials of adults in intensive care units who were assessed with a validated delirium screening or rating system, and if the association was measured between delirium and at least one of four clinical endpoints (death during admission, length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and any outcome after hospital discharge). Studies were excluded if they primarily enrolled patients with a neurological disorder or patients admitted to intensive care after cardiac surgery or organ/tissue transplantation, or centered on sedation management or alcohol or substance withdrawal. Data were extracted on characteristics of studies, populations sampled, identification of delirium, and outcomes. Random effects models and meta-regression analyses were used to pool data from individual studies.ResultsDelirium was identified in 5280 of 16,595 (31.8%) critically ill patients reported in 42 studies. When compared with control patients without delirium, patients with delirium had significantly higher mortality during admission (risk ratio 2.19, 94% confidence interval 1.78 to 2.70; P<0.001) as well as longer durations of mechanical ventilation and lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and in hospital (standard mean differences 1.79 (95% confidence interval 0.31 to 3.27; P<0.001), 1.38 (0.99 to 1.77; P<0.001), and 0.97 (0.61 to 1.33; P<0.001), respectively). Available studies indicated an association between delirium and cognitive impairment after discharge.ConclusionsNearly a third of patients admitted to an intensive care unit develop delirium, and these patients are at increased risk of dying during admission, longer stays in hospital, and cognitive impairment after discharge.

Project description:INTRODUCTION: Tracheostomy is one of the more commonly performed procedures in critically ill patients yet the optimal method of performing tracheostomies in this population remains to be established. The aim of this study was to systematically review and quantitatively synthesize all randomized clinical trials (RCTs), comparing elective percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) and surgical tracheostomy (ST) in adult critically ill patients with regards to major short and long term outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Additionally, bibliographies and selected conference proceedings were reviewed, and experts in the field and manufacturers of two PDT kits were contacted. Randomized clinical trials comparing any method of elective PDT to ST that included critically ill adults and reported at least one clinically relevant outcome were included. Data extracted included trial characteristics, measures of study validity, and clinically relevant outcomes. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs involving 1,212 patients were included. Most PDTs used a multiple dilator technique and were performed in the intensive care unit (ICU). The pooled odds ratio (OR) for wound infection was 0.28 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.16 to 0.49, p < 0.0005), indicating a significant reduction with PDT compared to ST. Overall, PDT was equivalent to ST for bleeding, major peri-procedural and long-term complications; however, subgroup analysis suggested PDT resulted in a lower incidence of bleeding (OR = 0.29 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.75, p = 0.01)) and death (OR = 0.71 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.0, p = 0.05)) when the STs were performed in the operating theatre. CONCLUSION: PDT reduces the overall incidence of wound infection and may further reduce clinical relevant bleeding and mortality when compared with ST performed in the operating theatre. PDT, performed in the ICU, should be considered the procedure of choice for performing elective tracheostomies in critically ill adult patients.

Project description:BackgroundA recent large multicentre trial found no difference in clinical outcomes but identified a possibility of increased mortality rates in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) receiving higher protein. These alarming findings highlighted the urgent need to conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to inform clinical practice.MethodsFrom personal files, citation searching, and three databases searched up to 29-5-2023, we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult critically ill patients that compared higher vs lower protein delivery with similar energy delivery between groups and reported clinical and/or patient-centred outcomes. We conducted random-effect meta-analyses and subsequently trial sequential analyses (TSA) to control for type-1 and type-2 errors. The main subgroup analysis investigated studies with and without combined early physical rehabilitation intervention. A subgroup analysis of AKI vs no/not known AKI was also conducted.ResultsTwenty-three RCTs (n = 3303) with protein delivery of 1.49 ± 0.48 vs 0.92 ± 0.30 g/kg/d were included. Higher protein delivery was not associated with overall mortality (risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.11; I2 = 0%; 21 studies; low certainty) and other clinical outcomes. In 2 small studies, higher protein combined with early physical rehabilitation showed a trend towards improved self-reported quality-of-life physical function measurements at day-90 (standardized mean difference 0.40, 95% CI - 0.04 to 0.84; I2 = 30%). In the AKI subgroup, higher protein delivery significantly increased mortality (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.11-1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies; confirmed by TSA with high certainty, and the number needed to harm is 7). Higher protein delivery also significantly increased serum urea (mean difference 2.31 mmol/L, 95% CI 1.64-2.97; I2 = 0%; 7 studies).ConclusionHigher, compared with lower protein delivery, does not appear to affect clinical outcomes in general critically ill patients but may increase mortality rates in patients with AKI. Further investigation of the combined early physical rehabilitation intervention in non-AKI patients is warranted.Prospero idCRD42023441059.

Dataset Information

Antithrombin III in critically ill patients: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Review methods

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Antithrombin III in critically ill patients: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets