Scholarlink

<p>Maintaining mean arterial pressure (MAP) within a predefined target is central to haemodynamic management in surgical and critically ill adults receiving vasopressors. Closed-loop vasopressor (CLV) systems automate titration to optimise blood pressure control, but their clinical effectiveness remains uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing CLV with manual titration. This PRISMA 2020–compliant review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420250655697). MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Library were searched (January 2000–June 2025). Randomised controlled trials enrolling adults receiving vasopressors in perioperative or intensive care settings were included. Primary outcomes were time within the MAP target range and time spent in hypotension or hypertension. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0 and certainty of evidence using GRADE. Random- or fixed-effects models were selected according to heterogeneity. Six randomized controlled trials (215 patients) were included in the systematic review, whereas five perioperative trials contributed to the meta-analysis of haemodynamic control outcomes, and one ICU-based study was summarized narratively because it did not report comparable MAP control endpoints. CLV increased time within the MAP target range (mean difference [MD] 33.94%, 95% CI 20.41–47.46; I<sup>2</sup> = 77%) and reduced time in hypotension (MD − 18.24%, 95% CI − 28.95 to − 7.53; I<sup>2</sup> = 73%). There was no significant difference in time in hypertension, cumulative norepinephrine dose, or major/minor adverse events. ICU length of stay was not pooled because of clinical and methodological heterogeneity. Certainty of evidence ranged from low to high (moderate for haemodynamic control outcomes). CLV systems improved haemodynamic control, primarily in perioperative settings,&#xa0;but heterogeneity and small samples limit confidence in effect size and generalisability.&#xa0;Evidence in critically ill populations remains limited, and larger trials are needed to determine whether improvements in these physiological surrogate endpoints translate into meaningful patient-centred outcomes.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Closed-loop vasopressor systems for hemodynamic control in perioperative and critical care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月22日

查看全文
  • Jorge Iván Alvarado-Sánchez,
  • Diana María Abril-Calderón,
  • Isabella Sánchez-Quimbayo,
  • Lucas Oñoro-Patiño,
  • Camilo Vega-Useche,
  • Juan Sebastián Reyes-Gonzales,
  • Fredy Leonardo Carreño-Hernandez

摘要

Maintaining mean arterial pressure (MAP) within a predefined target is central to haemodynamic management in surgical and critically ill adults receiving vasopressors. Closed-loop vasopressor (CLV) systems automate titration to optimise blood pressure control, but their clinical effectiveness remains uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing CLV with manual titration. This PRISMA 2020–compliant review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420250655697). MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Library were searched (January 2000–June 2025). Randomised controlled trials enrolling adults receiving vasopressors in perioperative or intensive care settings were included. Primary outcomes were time within the MAP target range and time spent in hypotension or hypertension. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0 and certainty of evidence using GRADE. Random- or fixed-effects models were selected according to heterogeneity. Six randomized controlled trials (215 patients) were included in the systematic review, whereas five perioperative trials contributed to the meta-analysis of haemodynamic control outcomes, and one ICU-based study was summarized narratively because it did not report comparable MAP control endpoints. CLV increased time within the MAP target range (mean difference [MD] 33.94%, 95% CI 20.41–47.46; I2 = 77%) and reduced time in hypotension (MD − 18.24%, 95% CI − 28.95 to − 7.53; I2 = 73%). There was no significant difference in time in hypertension, cumulative norepinephrine dose, or major/minor adverse events. ICU length of stay was not pooled because of clinical and methodological heterogeneity. Certainty of evidence ranged from low to high (moderate for haemodynamic control outcomes). CLV systems improved haemodynamic control, primarily in perioperative settings, but heterogeneity and small samples limit confidence in effect size and generalisability. Evidence in critically ill populations remains limited, and larger trials are needed to determine whether improvements in these physiological surrogate endpoints translate into meaningful patient-centred outcomes.