Meta-Analysis Of Phlebitis Causeda By Different Administration Methods Of Alprostadil Microsphere Carrier Preparation

Objective:The method of Meta analysis was used to evaluate the difference of phlebitis caused by different administration methods of alprostadil lipid microspheres and the rationality of intravenous infusion of alprostadil lipid microspheres in clinic,which could provide evidence-based reference for clinical application.Methods:This study was conducted by searching CNKI,Vip,Wanfang,Database of China Biomedical Literature Service system,Embase,Pubmed,The Cochrane Library to collect different forms of administration of prostaglandin microsphere carrier preparations leading to phlebitis.Relevant research literature on differences.Screening conditions were developed to screen the literature,and the quality was evaluated according to the Cochrane System Evaluator’s Manual,and the extracted valid data was subjected to meta-analysis using Rev Man 5.2 statistical software.Results:A total of 33 articles were included in this study,with a total of 4309 participants.The results of system analysis show that:1.The incidence of phlebitis induced by intravenous infusion of alprostadil microsphere carrier was significantly higher than that of intravenous injection(RR=1.75,95 % CI [1.02,3.02],P ≤ 0.04).If the frequency of phlebitis was counted by the number of drugs used,The difference was statistically significant(RR=1.75,95 % CI [1.30,2.34],P ≤ 0.0002).The incidence of phlebitis induced by intravenous drip was significantly higher than that induced by intravenous injection.The incidence of phlebitis induced by intravenous infusion of alprostadil microspheres was significantly higher than that of intravenous infusion of RR=2.93,95 % CI [1.24,6.92],P ≤ 0.01).The incidence of phlebitis induced by intravenous infusion of alprostadil microspheres was significantly higher than that of intravenous infusion(RR=0.46,95 % CI [0.31,0.68],P ≤ 0.0001).2.Intravenous injection of alprostadil microspheres was more likely to lead to phlebitis than intravenous infusion of alprostadil microspheres(RR=2.92,95 % CI [2.18,3.92],P <0.00001).There was no significant difference in phlebitis between intravenous injection and intravenous infusion of alprostadil microspheres(RR=1.30,95 % CI [0.28,6.07],P ≤ 0.74).3.There was no significant difference in phlebitis between intravenous drip and intravenous infusion of alprostadil microspheres(RR=1.12,95 % CI [0.04,28.97],P ≤ 0.94).There was no significant difference in phlebitis between intravenous infusion and diluted intravenous infusion of alprostadil microsphere carrier(RR=1.28,95 % CI [0.27,6.11],P ≤0.76).4.The incidence of phlebitis caused by fine filtration infusion of alprostadil microsphere carrier was significantly different from that of ordinary infusion device(RR=0.18,95 % CI,0.13,0.25,P < 0.00001).Alprostadil microsphere carrier is more likely to lead to phlebitis than fine filtration infusion.5.After administration of alprostadil microsphere carrier by rapid intravenous injection and slow intravenous injection,slow intravenous injection was more likely to lead to phlebitis than rapid intravenous injection(RR=0.37,95 % CI [0.21,0.67],P ≤ 0.0010).Conclusion:In this study,it was concluded that the incidence of phlebitis caused by rapid administration of alprostadil microsphere carrier or the use of fine filtration infusion device was lower,and the incidence of phlebitis caused by intravenous injection of small pot intravenous drip was higher.The incidence of phlebitis caused by intravenous infusion was higher than that caused by intravenous infusion.