[Randomized controlled multicenter study of albumin replacement therapy in septic shock (ARISS)]
Der Anaesthesist. 2021
Is restrictive fluid resuscitation beneficial not only for hemorrhagic shock but also for septic shock?: A meta-analysis
BACKGROUND Whether to use limited fluid resuscitation (LFR) in patients with hemorrhagic shock or septic shock remains controversial. This research was aimed to assess the pros and cons of utilizing LFR in hemorrhagic shock or septic shock patients. METHODS PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of science, CNKI, VIP, and Wan Fang database searches included for articles published before December 15, 2020. Randomized controlled trials of LFR or adequate fluid resuscitation in hemorrhagic shock or septic shock patients were selected. RESULT This meta-analysis including 28 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and registered 3288 patients. The 7 of 27 RCTs were the patients with septic shock. Others were traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients. Comparing LFR or adequate fluid resuscitation in hemorrhagic shock or septic shock patients, the summary odds ratio (OR) was 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.60, P < .00001) for mortality, 0.46 (95% CI 0.31-0.70, P = .0002) for multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), 0.35 (95% CI 0.25-0.47) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and 0.33 (95% CI 0.20-0.56) for disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). CONCLUSION Limited fluid resuscitation is the benefit of both traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients and septic shock patients.
Balanced Salt Solution Versus Normal Saline in Resuscitation of Pediatric Sepsis: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
Indian journal of pediatrics. 2021;:1-4
Current evidences in resuscitation of adult sepsis have pointed to the importance of types of crystalloid fluid-related complications on resuscitation outcomes, but evidences are lacking in pediatric populations. In this study, the authors aimed to compare outcomes of pediatric sepsis resuscitation with different types of crystalloid. They randomly assigned pediatric sepsis patients requiring fluid bolus into three groups to receive either normal saline solution (NSS), Ringer lactate solution (RLS), or Sterofundin as fluid bolus therapy. Forty-two patients were included in the study. Median age was 29 mo and, weight 13 kg. After fluid bolus, the complications were not different among groups. However, in the RLS group, the patients who received large dose of the fluid showed significant reduction in urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (uNGAL) level. It is concluded that fluid bolus therapy with different types of crystalloid solution did not result in different outcomes but large dose of RLS was associated with greater reduction of uNGAL level, compared to other fluids.Trial Registration: Thai Clinical Trial Registry (TCTR) identification number TCTR20170605001 (retrospectively registered on 1st June 2017). https://www.clinicaltrials.in.th/index.php?tp=regtrials&menu=trialsearch&smenu=fulltext&task20=search&task2=view1&id=2576.
Comparison of 5% human albumin and normal saline for fluid resuscitation in sepsis induced hypotension among patients with cirrhosis (FRISC study): a randomized controlled trial
Hepatology international. 2021
AIMS: Sepsis and septic shock are common causes of hospitalization and mortality in patients with cirrhosis. There is no data on the choice of fluid and resuscitation protocols in sepsis-induced hypotension in cirrhosis. METHODS In this open-label trial conducted at a single center, we enrolled 308 cirrhotics with sepsis-induced hypotension and randomized them to receive either 5% albumin or normal saline. The primary endpoint was a reversal of hypotension [mean arterial pressure, MAP, ≥ 65 mmHg] at 3 h. Secondary endpoints included serial effects on heart rate, arterial lactate and urine output. RESULTS 154 patients each received 5% albumin (males, 79.8%, mean MAP 52.9 ± 7.0 mm Hg) or 0.9% saline (85.1%, 53.4 ± 6.3 mm Hg) with comparable baseline parameters and liver disease severity. Reversal of hypotension was higher in patients receiving 5% albumin than saline at the end of one hour [25.3% and 11.7%, p = 0.03, Odds ratio (95% CI)-1.9 (1.08-3.42)] and at the end of three hours [11.7% and 3.2%, p = 0.008, 3.9 (1.42-10.9)]. Sustained reduction in heart rate and hyperlactatemia (p < 0.001) was better in the albumin group. At one week, the proportion of patients surviving was higher in the albumin group than those receiving saline (43.5% vs 38.3%, p = 0.03). Female gender and SOFA ≥ 11 were predictors of non-response to fluid. CONCLUSIONS 5% human albumin is safe and beneficial in reversing sepsis-induced hypotension compared to normal saline in patients with cirrhosis improving clinically assessable parameters of systemic hemodynamics, tissue perfusion and in-hospital short-term survival of cirrhosis patients with sepsis.
Mortality Benefit From the Passive Leg Raise Maneuver in Guiding Resuscitation of Septic Shock Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials
Journal of intensive care medicine. 2021;:8850666211019713
BACKGROUND Fluid therapy plays a major role in the management of critically ill patients. Yet assessment of intravascular volume in these patients is challenging. Different invasive and non-invasive methods have been used with variable results. The passive leg raise (PLR) maneuver has been recommended by international guidelines as a means to determine appropriate fluid resuscitation. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine if using this method of volume assessment has an impact on mortality outcome in patients with septic shock. METHODS This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched available data in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception until October 2020 for prospective, randomized, controlled trials that compared PLR-guided fluid resuscitation to standard care in adult patients with septic shock. Our primary outcome was mortality at the longest duration of follow-up. RESULTS We screened 1,425 article titles and abstracts. Of the 23 full-text articles reviewed, 5 studies with 462 patients met our eligibility criteria. Odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for mortality at the longest reported time interval were calculated for each study. Using random effects modeling, the pooled OR (95% CI) for mortality with a PLR-guided resuscitation strategy was 0.82 (0.52 -1.30). The included studies were not blinded and they ranged from having low to high risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. CONCLUSION Our analysis showed there was no statistically significant difference in mortality among septic shock patients treated with PLR-guided resuscitation vs. those with standard care.
Albumin replacement therapy in immunocompromised patients with sepsis - Secondary analysis of the ALBIOS trial
Journal of critical care. 2021;63:83-91
BACKGROUND The best fluid replacement strategy and the role of albumin in immunocompromised patients with sepsis is unclear. METHODS We performed a secondary analysis of immunocompromised patients enrolled in the ALBIOS trial which randomized patients with severe sepsis or septic shock to receive either 20% albumin (target 30 g per liter or more) and crystalloid or crystalloid alone during ICU stay. RESULTS Of 1818 patients originally enrolled, 304 (16.4%) were immunocompromised. One-hundred-thirty-nine (45.7%) patients were randomized in the albumin while 165 (54.2%) in the crystalloid group. At 90 days, 69 (49.6%) in the albumin group and 89 (53.9%) in the crystalloids group died (hazard ratio - HR - 0.94; 95% CI 0.69-1.29). No differences were observed with regards to 28-day mortality, SOFA score (and sub-scores), length of stay in the ICU and in the hospital, proportion of patients who had developed acute kidney injury or received renal replacement therapy, duration of mechanical ventilation. Albumin was not independently associated with a higher or lower 90-day mortality (HR 0.979, 95% CI 0.709-1.352) as compared to crystalloid. CONCLUSION Albumin replacement during the ICU stay, as compared with crystalloids alone, did not affect clinical outcomes in a cohort of immunocompromised patients with sepsis.
Mortality benefit of crystalloids administered in 1-6 hours in septic adults in the ED systematic review with narrative synthesis
Emergency medicine journal : EMJ. 2021
BACKGROUND Based on the 2018 update of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, the Committee for Quality Improvement of the NHSs of England recommended the instigation of the elements of the 'Sepsis-6 bundle' within 1 hour to adult patients screened positive for sepsis. This bundle includes a bolus infusion of 30 mL/kg crystalloids in the ED. Besides the UK, both in the USA and Australia, compliance with similar 1-hour targets became an important quality indicator. However, the supporting evidence may neither be contemporaneous nor necessarily valid for emergency medicine settings. METHOD A systematic review was designed and registered at PROSPERO to assess available emergency medicine/prehospital evidence published between 2012 and 2020, investigating the clinical benefits associated with a bolus infusion of a minimum 30 mL/kg crystalloids within 1 hour to adult patients screened positive for sepsis. Due to the small number of papers that addressed this volume of fluids in 1 hour, we expanded the search to include studies looking at 1-6 hours. RESULTS Seven full-text articles were identified, which investigated various aspects of the fluid resuscitation in adult sepsis. However, none answered completely to the original research question aimed to determine either the effect of time-to-crystalloids or the optimal fluid volume of resuscitation. Our findings demonstrated that in the USA/UK/Australia/Canada, adult ED septic patients receive 23-43 mL/kg of crystalloids during the first 6 hours of resuscitation without significant differences either in mortality or in adverse effects. CONCLUSION This systematic review did not find high-quality evidence supporting the administration of 30 mL/kg crystalloid bolus to adult septic patients within 1 hour of presentation in the ED. Future research must investigate both the benefits and the potential harms of the recommended intervention.
The effect of early vasopressin use on patients with septic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis
The American journal of emergency medicine. 2021;48:203-208
BACKGROUND The effect of early vasopressin initiation on clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock is uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of early start of vasopressin support within 6 h after the diagnosis on clinical outcomes in septic shock patients. METHODS We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies from inception to the 1st of February 2021. We included studies involving adult patients (> 16 years)with septic shock. All authors reported our primary outcome of short-term mortality and in the experimental group patients in the studies receiving vasopressin infusion within 6 h after diagnosis of septic shock and in the control group patients in the studies receiving no vasopressin infusion or vasopressin infusion 6 h after diagnosis of septic shock, clearly comparing with clinically relevant secondary outcomes(use of renal replacement therapy(RRT),new onset arrhythmias, ICU length of stay and length of hospitalization). Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS Five studies including 788 patients were included. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis showed that short-term mortality between the two groups was no difference (odds ratio [OR] = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.48; P = 0.6; χ2 = 0.83; I2 = 0%). Secondary outcomes demonstrated that the use of RRT was less in the experimental group than that of the control group (OR = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.88; P = 0.007; χ2 = 3.15; I2 = 36%).The new onset arrhythmias between the two groups was no statistically significant difference (OR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.31 to 1.1; P = 0.10; χ2 = 4.7; I2 = 36%). There was no statistically significant difference in the ICU length of stay(mean difference = 0.16; 95% CI, - 0.91 to 1.22; P = 0.77; χ2 = 6.08; I2 = 34%) and length of hospitalization (mean difference = -2.41; 95% CI, -6.61 to 1.78; P = 0.26; χ2 = 8.57; I2 = 53%) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Early initiation of vasopressin in patients within 6 h of septic shock onset was not associated with decreased short-term mortality, new onset arrhythmias, shorter ICU length of stay and length of hospitalization, but can reduce the use of RRT. Further large-scale RCTs are still needed to evaluate the benefit of starting vasopressin in the early phase of septic shock.
Early Lactate-Guided Resuscitation of Elderly Septic Patients
Journal of intensive care medicine. 2021;:8850666211023347
BACKGROUND Early lactate-guided resuscitation was endorsed in the guidelines of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign as a key strategy to decrease the mortality of patients admitted to the ICU department with septic shock. However, its effectiveness in elderly Asian patients is uncertain. METHOD We conducted a single-center trial to test the effectiveness of the early lactate-guided resuscitation of older Asian patients at the Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University. Eligible septic shock patients who consented to participation in the study were randomly assigned to receive early lactate-guided treatment or regular treatment as controls. RESULT A total of 82 patients met the hyperlactatemia criteria and participated in the trial. Forty-two patients received early lactate-guided treatment (lactate group) and 40 received regular treatment (control group). The lactate group received more fluids at initial 6 hours (3.3 ± 1.4 vs 2.4 ± 1.7 L, P = 0.01), but similar proportions of patients in both groups required the use of vasopressors and vasodilators. Patients in the lactate group showed significantly reduced ICU needs compared to the control group, which were weaned from mechanical ventilation more quickly (median 7, IQR 4 to 14 vs median 9, IQR 4.3 to 17.8, P = 0.02) and transferred out of the ICU earlier (median 4.5, IQR 2.8 to 7.3 vs median 6, IQR 3.2 to 8, P = 0.01). However, the hospital mortality (35.7% vs 42.5%, P = 0.35) and ICU mortality (31.0% vs 37.5%, P = 0.38) for both groups were not reduced. CONCLUSION For critically ill patients (elderly Asian patients) admitted to the ICU department with hyperlactatemia, early lactate-guided treatment reduced ICU needs but did not reduce mortality.
Balanced crystalloids versus saline in critically ill adults with low plasma bicarbonate: A secondary analysis of a clinical trial
Journal of critical care. 2021
PURPOSE We aimed to determine if balanced crystalloids compared with saline improve outcomes in critically ill adults admitted with low plasma bicarbonate. MATERIALS AND METHODS We performed a secondary analysis of the Isotonic Solutions and Major Adverse Renal Events Trial (SMART). We included patients who presented to the Emergency Department with a first measured plasma bicarbonate less than 20 mmol/L. Among these patients, we compared the effect of balanced crystalloid versus saline on the primary outcome of major adverse kidney events within 30 days (MAKE30), defined as a composite of death, new renal-replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction (final inpatient creatinine ≥200% baseline). Secondary outcomes included 30 day in-hospital mortality, receipt of new RRT, persistent renal dysfunction, incident AKI, and vasopressor-free days. RESULTS Among the 2029 patients with an initial plasma bicarbonate concentration < 20 mmol/L, there was no difference in the incidence of MAKE30 between those assigned to balanced crystalloid versus saline (21.8% vs 21.3%; P = 0.93). Secondary outcomes were similar between the balanced crystalloid and saline groups. CONCLUSIONS Among critically ill adults presenting to the Emergency Department, initial plasma bicarbonate concentration does not appear to be a useful marker to guide the selection of balanced crystalloid versus saline.