4.6 Review

Effectiveness of 80% vs 30-35% fraction of inspired oxygen in patients undergoing surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
卷 122, 期 3, 页码 325-334

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2018.11.024

关键词

general anaesthesia; hyperoxia; postoperative outcome; surgical site infection; surgical wound infection

资金

  1. World Health Organization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) strongly recommended the use of a high fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO(2)) in adult patients undergoing general anaesthesia to reduce the risk of surgical site infection (SSI). Since then, further trials have been published, trials included previously have come under scrutiny, and one article was retracted. We updated the systematic review on which the recommendation was based. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search from January 1990 to April 2018 for RCTs comparing the effect of high (80%) vs standard (30-35%) FiO(2) on the incidence of SSI. Studies retracted or under investigation were excluded. A random effects model was used for meta-analyses; the sources of heterogeneity were explored using meta-regression. Results: Of 21 RCTs included, six were newly identified since the publication of the WHO guideline review; 17 could be included in the final analyses. Overall, no evidence for a reduction of SSI after the use of high FiO(2) was found [relative risk (RR): 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-1.07]. There was evidence that high FiO(2) was beneficial in intubated patients [RR: 0.80 (95% CI: 0.64-0.99)], but not in non-intubated patients [RR: 1.20 (95% CI: 0.91-1.58); test of interaction; P = 0.048]. Conclusions: The WHO updated analyses did not show definite beneficial effect of the use of high perioperative FiO(2), overall, but there was evidence of effect of reducing the SSI risk in surgical patients under general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation. However, the evidence for this beneficial effect has become weaker and the strength of the recommendation needs to be reconsidered.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据