呼气末闭塞试验预测容量反应性价值的系统回顾及Meta分析：基于国际数据库的结果

目的通过系统回顾以及Meta分析评价呼气末闭塞试验（EEOT）判定容量反应性的临床价值。 方法通过计算机检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library数据库，收集自建库至2017年10月所有应用EEOT评价容量反应性的临床研究，由2位研究员独立进行文献筛选、资料提取及方法学质量评价。采用双变量混合效应模型对其敏感度、特异度、阳性似然比、阴性似然比及诊断比值比进行合并分析，同时绘制受试者工作特征曲线图，并计算曲线下面积（AUC）；绘制Fagan图，评价其临床应用价值。此外，进一步筛选同时采用EEOT与脉压变异性（PPV）分别判断容量反应性的研究，计算相对诊断比值比，评价两种方法对容量反应性的预测价值。 结果共纳入7篇文献，共计270次容量评估，均以液体负荷试验作为评价容量反应性的金标准。EEOT判断容量反应性的合并敏感度和特异度分别为0.93（95%CI：0.86~0.96）、0.90（95%CI：0.81~0.95），ROC的AUC为0.97（95%CI：0.95~0.98）。7篇文献中共4篇同时比较EEOT、PPV的容量预测价值，EEOT与PPV的相对诊断比值比为3.13（P=0.24）。 结论EEOT预测容量反应性有较高的敏感度以及特异度，其预测价值可能不低于PPV，但仍需要前瞻性的大样本研究进一步证实。

End-expiratory occlusion test for predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on international databases

ObjectiveTo determine the predictive value of the end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) in fluid responsiveness evaluation by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies. MethodsDatabases including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Database were searched for relevant clinical trials before October 2017. Two independent investigators extracted data and study characteristics. Bivariate mixed-effects regression model was used to estimate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio with 95% CIs. The SROC curve and Fagan graphs were produced, and the area under the curve was also calculated. Meanwhile, we calculated relative diagnostic odds ratio (RDOR) to compare diagnostic value of EEOT and PPV. ResultsSeven studies (260 adult patients, 270 fluid challenges) were included. Fluid challenge test was used as standard reference in all studies. For the EEOT-induced changes in CO or its surrogate, the pooled sensitivity was 0.93 (95%CI: 0.86-0.96) and the pooled specificity was 0.90 (95%CI: 0.81-0.95). The area under the ROC curve was 0.97 (95%CI: 0.95-0.98). Four studies which compared EEOT and PPV at the same time, the RDOR was 3.13 (P=0.24). ConclusionEEOT-induced changes in CO or its surrogate can very reliably predict the response of CO to volume expansion in adult patients. There is no significant difference between the diagnostic value of EEOT and PPV.