RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Family members may wish to be present during resuscitation of loved ones, despite concerns that they may interfere with the resuscitation or experience psychological harm. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to determine whether offering family presence during resuscitation (FPDR) affected patient mortality, resuscitation quality, or family member psychological outcomes. We searched multiple databases up to January 2014 for studies comparing FPDR to usual care. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Data from randomized controlled trial (RCTs) at low or uncertain risk of bias were eligible for pooling. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: Three RCTs evaluated the offering of FPDR in adults, finding no differences in resuscitation duration, prehospital/emergency room mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.80, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.54-1.19), or 28-day mortality (OR 1.24, 95 % CI [0.50-3.03]). Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores for anxiety (mean difference [MD] -0.99, 95 % CI [-1.77, -0.22]) and depression (MD -1.00, 95 % CI [-1.78, -0.23]), along with Impact of Events Scale intrusion score (MD -1.00, 95 % CI [-1.96, -0.03]), were better in family members offered FPDR. One RCT evaluated FPDR in pediatric patients, finding no mortality differences at 28 days (OR 0.30; 95 % CI [0.11-0.79]), but did not report psychological outcomes in family members. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence suggests the offering of FPDR does not affect adult resuscitation outcomes and may improve family member psychological outcomes. Low-quality evidence suggests FPDR does not affect pediatric resuscitation outcomes. The generalizability of these findings outside the prehospital and emergency room setting is limited due to the absence of trials in other health care settings.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The background of this study is to determine whether the addition of intravenous colloid to diuretic therapy, in comparison to diuretic therapy alone, improves diuresis and oxygenation and prevents intravascular volume depletion in intensive care unit (ICU) patients without shock. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, conference abstracts of ACCP, SCCM, ATS, and references of relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult ICU patients, not in shock (defined as patients on low dose or no vasopressors, without need for IV fluid bolus or blood transfusion within 24 h), comparing intravenous colloid therapy (human albumin, plasma, synthetic starches, or gels) plus diuretic to control (diuretic alone, or diuretic plus placebo). Two reviewers independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed quality, and extracted data. RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty five studies were found in the initial search; 14 were deemed relevant; 2 were found to be eligible. There was good agreement between reviewers for study relevance (k = 0.869) and eligibility (k = 0.811). One study of heart failure patients showed no evidence of improved mean or hourly urine output in the group receiving albumin. The second studied patients hypoproteinemic with ARDS and demonstrated an improved fluid balance in 3 days, improved oxygenation status, and improved serum albumin level in patients treated with albumin. No significant differences were found for other outcomes. No studies evaluating colloids other than albumin were found. CONCLUSIONS: Our review is limited by the small number of high-quality RCTs available to study this clinical question, both of which only studied albumin. High-quality RCTs are required to evaluate the effect of albumin as well as other colloids as an adjunct to diuresis in a general ICU population.