Splenic

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:脾动脉栓塞术(SAE)已成为现代多学科创伤护理领域的重要策略,提高严重损伤患者的脾抢救率。然而,由于缺乏前瞻性数据,利益相关者之间仍然存在关于是否应在演示时进行SAE(预防性或pSAE)的争论,或者是否应该观察患者,SAE仅在患者再次出血时才使用。本系统综述旨在评估已发布的推荐pSAE的实践管理指南,根据他们的质量进行分层。
    方法:根据系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)声明的首选报告项目注册和报告研究。Medline,PubMed,科克伦,Embase,研究作者对GoogleScholar进行了搜索。确定的指南根据评估指南研究与评估II(AGREE-II)工具进行了分级。
    结果:数据库和互联网搜索确定了1006个结果。应用排除标准后,包括28条准则。在15个指南中推荐使用pSAE(54%)。这包括9份高质量指南中的6份(66.7%),9个准则中有4个是中等质量的(44.4%),和3的10(30%)的低质量指南,p=0.275。
    结论:本系统评价显示,pSAE的推荐在高质量的指南中更为常见。然而,推荐的实践指南存在巨大的异质性,可能是基于个人创伤系统,而不是现有证据。这反映了对数据解释的偏见和缺乏多学科系统输入,包括介入放射科医生.
    BACKGROUND: Splenic artery embolisation (SAE) has become a vital strategy in the modern landscape of multidisciplinary trauma care, improving splenic salvage rates in patients with high-grade injury. However, due to a lack of prospective data there remains contention amongst stakeholders as to whether SAE should be performed at the time of presentation (prophylactic or pSAE), or whether patients should be observed, and SAE only used only if a patient re-bleeds. This systematic review aimed to assess published practice management guidelines which recommend pSAE, stratified according to their quality.
    METHODS: The study was registered and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Medline, PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched by the study authors. Identified guidelines were graded according to the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE-II) instrument.
    RESULTS: Database and internet searches identified 1006 results. After applying exclusion criteria, 28 guidelines were included. The use of pSAE was recommended in 15 guidelines (54%). This included 6 out of 9 guidelines that were high quality (66.7%), 4 out of 9 guidelines that were moderate quality (44.4%), and 3 out of 10 (30%) guidelines that were low quality, p = 0.275.
    CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review showed that recommendation of pSAE is more common in guidelines which are of high quality. However, there is vast heterogeneity of recommended practice guidelines, likely based on individual trauma systems rather than the available evidence. This reflects biases with interpretation of data and lack of multidisciplinary system inputs, including from interventional radiologists.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号