医学
内科学
荟萃分析
优势比
败血症
前瞻性队列研究
感染性休克
死亡率
心理干预
诊断优势比
梅德林
系统回顾
可能性
重症监护医学
死亡风险
预测值
置信区间
试验预测值
混淆
病危
风险评估
人口
疾病严重程度
相对风险
危重病
作者
Gelan Miao,Rui Lu,Tanyong Pipanmekaporn,Srisuluk Kacha,Atirut supphapipat,Natsuda Phothikun,Phut Jewprasertpan,Kaweesak Chittawatanarat
摘要
ABSTRACT Aims Glycaemic variability (GV) has emerged as an important prognostic indicator in critical illness, yet its predictive value among patients with sepsis remains unclear. This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to evaluate the association between GV metrics and mortality outcomes in adult patients with sepsis. Methods Cohort studies enrolling septic patients and reporting in‐hospital, 28‐day, or 30‐day mortality in relation to GV were identified through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CNKI, and Wanfang databases. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using a random‐effects model. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the findings. Results Ten studies comprising 18,337 patients were included. For categorical analysis, high‐GV patients had nearly twice the mortality risk (OR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.66–2.40, p < 0.0001; I 2 = 45%). For continuous analysis, all 4 GV metrics showed significant associations with mortality: CoV (OR = 1.050, I 2 = 76.6%), SD (OR = 1.0037, I 2 = 83.5%), GLI (OR = 1.0171, I 2 = 0.0%), and MAGE (OR = 1.0062, I 2 = 0.0%). High GV was associated with prolonged ICU stay (0.95 days, p = 0.0018). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the result robustness. Conclusions Elevated GV is independently linked to an increased risk of death among patients with sepsis. GLI and MAGE are the most reliable GV metrics for prognostic assessment, whereas CoV and SD are less consistent. Standardised GV measurement and prospective studies are warranted to evaluate whether interventions targeting GV can improve outcomes in this population.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI