Hypotension is associated with adverse outcomes in
critically ill and perioperative patients. However, these assumptions are
supported by observational studies. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled
trials aims to compare the impact of lower versus higher blood pressure targets
on mortality.
Data Sources:
We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Scholar from inception to
February 10, 2024.
Study Selection:
Randomized trials comparing lower versus higher blood
pressure targets in the management of critically ill and perioperative
settings.
Data Extraction:
The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the longest
follow-up available. This review was registered in the Prospective
International Register of Systematic Reviews, CRD42023452928.
Data Synthesis:
Of 2940 studies identified by the search string, 28 (12 in
critically ill and 16 in perioperative settings) were included totaling 15,672
patients. Patients in the low blood pressure target group had lower mortality
(23 studies included: 1019/7679 [13.3%] vs. 1103/7649 [14.4%]; relative risk
0.93; 95% CI, 0.87–0.99; p = 0.03; I2 = 0%). This
corresponded to a 97.4% probability of any increase in mortality with a
Bayesian approach. These findings were mainly driven by studies performed in
the ICU setting and with treatment lasting more than 24 hours; however, the
magnitude and direction of the results were similar in the majority of
sensitivity analyses including the analysis restricted to low risk of bias
studies. We also observed a lower rate of atrial fibrillation and fewer
patients requiring transfusion in low-pressure target groups. No differences
were found in the other secondary outcomes.
Conclusions:
Based on pooled randomized trial evidence, a lower compared
with a higher blood pressure target results in a reduction of mortality, atrial
fibrillation, and transfusion requirements. Lower blood pressure targets may be
beneficial but there is ongoing uncertainty. However, the present meta-analysis
does not confirm previous findings and recommendations. These results might
inform future guidelines and promote the study of the concept of protective
hemodynamics.
No comments:
Post a Comment