-
1.
Different Concentrations of Albumin Versus Crystalloid in Patients with Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials
Geng L, Tian X, Gao Z, Mao A, Feng L, He C
Journal of intensive care medicine. 2023;:8850666231170778
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The best type of resuscitation fluids for sepsis and septic shock patients remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of different concentrations of albumin on reducing the mortality rate of theses patients by meta-analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were used for screening the relevant studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible if they compared the effects of albumin with crystalloid on mortality in patients with sepsis and septic shock. Data were examined and extracted by two reviewers independently. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus with or without the help from a third reviewer. Data including mortality, sample size of the patients, and resuscitation endpoints were extracted. Meta-analysis was carried based on the corresponding odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS Eight studies with a total of 5124 septic patients and 3482 septic shock patients were included in this study. Compared with crystalloid, the use of albumin may represent a trend toward reduced the 90-day mortality of septic patients (OR 0.91 [0.80, 1.02]; P = .11) and significantly improved the outcome of septic shock patients (OR 0.85 [0.74, 0.99]; P = .04). Further analysis showed a potentially beneficial role of both 4% to 5% and 20% albumin on reducing the mortality of septic patients. The use of 20% albumin significantly decreased the 90-day mortality of septic shock patients (OR 0.81 [0.67, 0.98]; P = .03), which was better than 4% to 5% albumin and crystalloid. CONCLUSIONS Albumin treatment, particularly 20% albumin, significantly reduced the 90-day mortality in septic shock patients. Both 4% to 5% and 20% of albumin may work better than crystalloid in improving the survival rate of patients with sepsis, but more relative RCTs are required for validation.
-
2.
Effects of Albumin Supplements on In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with Sepsis or Septic Shock: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis
Liu P, Zhi D, Wang Y, Lin J, Zhang M, Duan M
Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM. 2022;2022:2384730
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To explore the clinical effects of albumin supplements on the basis of crystalloid solution in patients with sepsis or septic shock. METHODS The online databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were comprehensively searched from inception to June 28, 2021, with the keywords including "albumin," "sepsis," or "septic shock." Retrospective cohort (RC) and randomized controlled trials (RCT) were included for analysis. Two authors independently searched and analyzed the literature. The in-hospital mortality at 7 days and 28 days, duration of mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, length of ICU stay, and length of hospital stay were compared between patients with albumin supplements and crystalloid solution and those with crystalloid alone. RESULTS A total of 10 studies with 6463 patients were eventually included for meta-analysis. The in-hospital mortality of patients at 7 days (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.81-1.23) and 28 days (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.91-1.13) did not show a significant difference between the two groups of patients. Also, the pooled results demonstrated no significant differences in duration of mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.29, 95% CI: -0.05-0.63), renal replacement therapy (WMD = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.98-1.35), length of ICU stay (WMD = -0.07, 95% CI: -0.62-0.48), and length of hospital stay (WMD = -0.09, 95% CI: -0.70-0.52) between patients receiving albumin plus crystalloid solution and those with crystalloid solution alone. CONCLUSION Albumin supplements on the basis of crystalloid solution did not improve the 7-day and 28-dayin-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis or septic shock compared with those with crystalloid solution alone.
-
3.
Resuscitation Fluids in Septic Shock: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Li B, Zhao H, Zhang J, Yan Q, Li T, Liu L
Shock (Augusta, Ga.). 2019
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of various resuscitation fluids in septic shock by adopting a network meta-analysis (NMA). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing resuscitation fluids in septic shock were carried out by retrieving electronic databases. NMAs of 28-day mortality, 90-day mortality, incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) were conducted using the STATA 15.0 software. Probability-based ranking and surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) were performed to identify the optimal resuscitation fluid. Inconsistencies were evaluated by node-splitting analysis and a loop-specific approach. Furthermore, publication bias was analyzed by funnel plots. A total of 13 RCTs were enrolled in the analysis. The NMA results revealed that no significant differences were detected in the outcomes of 28-day mortality and 90-day mortality among various resuscitation fluids. The SUCRAs (the first indicates the best) of 28-day mortality showed that the hypertonic sodium chloride/hydroxyethyl starch 40 solution ranked the highest (93.8%), followed by the balanced solution (BS) (69.6%), and albumin (61.9%). On the other hand, the SUCRAs of 90-day mortality revealed that gelatin (GEL) ranked the highest (75.1%), followed by BS (55.1%), and NS (52.4%). The NMA results of AKI demonstrated that high-molecular-weight hydroxyethyl starch (H-HES) was associated with increased risk of AKI in comparison with GEL, BS, and L-HES. The SUCRAs of AKI showed that GEL ranked the highest (74.4%), followed by NS (64.9%), and BS (58.3%). In addition, the NMA results of RRT revealed that H-HES was associated with an increased need for RRT in comparison with BS and NS, and L-HES was associated with increased need of RRT in comparison with BS. The SUCRAs of RRT revealed that NS ranked the highest (91.6%), followed by BS (74.4%) and L-HES (36.1%). No significant inconsistencies were shown by the node-splitting analysis and no publication bias was demonstrated in the funnel plots. In conclusion, BS was determined as the preferred resuscitation fluid for septic shock. Moreover, the use of GEL requires further evaluation. H-HES was associated with a significant risk of AKI and RRT, whereas L-HES with an increased need for RRT compared with BS. Thus, both resuscitation fluids should be avoided for septic shock.
-
4.
Comparison of the effects of albumin and crystalloid on mortality among patients with septic shock: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
Zou Y, Ma K, Xiong JB, Xi CH, Deng XJ
Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina. 2018;136((5):):421-432.
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study aimed to compare the effects on mortality of albumin and crystalloid, used for fluid resuscitation among adult patients with septic shock, through conducting a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). DESIGN AND SETTING Meta-analysis and TSA conducted at Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China. METHODS Data were collected from several major databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Clinical Trials.gov and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies that compared the effects of albumin therapy versus crystalloid therapy on mortality among adult septic shock patients were eligible for inclusion in the analyses. The study name, year of publication, country of the trial, albumin concentration, type of crystalloid and all reported mortalities at different follow-up endpoints were extracted. RESULTS Compared with crystalloid, albumin did not decrease all-cause mortality at the final follow-up. However, in TSA, the required information size was not achieved in all groups, which means that the effect size was not definitive and further RCTs are needed to confirm or deny these findings. CONCLUSIONS Compared with crystalloid solutions, albumin was unable to decrease all-cause mortality. However, TSA indicated that these results could be false-negative. Additional randomized controlled trials are needed to clarify this discrepancy.
-
5.
Comparison of the effects of albumin and crystalloid on mortality in adult patients with severe sepsis and septic shock: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
Xu, J. Y., Chen, Q. H., Xie, J. F., Pan, C., Liu, S. Q., Huang, L. W., Yang, C. S., Liu, L., Huang, Y. Z., Guo, F. M., et al
Critical Care (London, England). 2014;18(6):702
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The aim of this study was to examine whether albumin reduced mortality when employed for the resuscitation of adult patients with severe sepsis and septic shock compared with crystalloid by meta-analysis. METHODS We searched for and gathered data from MEDLINE, Elsevier, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science databases. Studies were eligible if they compared the effects of albumin versus crystalloid therapy on mortality in adult patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Two reviewers extracted data independently. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with other two reviewers until a consensus was achieved. Data including mortality, sample size of the patients with severe sepsis, sample size of the patients with septic shock and resuscitation endpoints were extracted. Data were analyzed by the methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager 4.2 software. RESULTS A total of 5,534 records were identified through the initial search. Five studies compared albumin with crystalloid. In total, 3,658 severe sepsis and 2,180 septic shock patients were included in the meta-analysis. The heterogeneity was determined to be non-significant (P = 0.86, I(2) = 0%). Compared with crystalloid, a trend toward reduced 90-day mortality was observed in severe sepsis patients resuscitated with albumin (odds ratio (OR) 0.88; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.01; P = 0.08). However, the use of albumin for resuscitation significantly decreased 90-day mortality in septic shock patients (OR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.97; P = 0.03). Compared with saline, the use of albumin for resuscitation slightly improved outcome in severe sepsis patients (OR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.08; P = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS In this meta-analysis, a trend toward reduced 90-day mortality was observed in severe sepsis patients resuscitated with albumin compared with crystalloid and saline. Moreover, the 90-day mortality of patients with septic shock decreased significantly.
-
6.
Albumin versus other fluids for fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis: a meta-analysis
Jiang, L., Jiang, S., Zhang, M., Zheng, Z., Ma, Y.
PloS one. 2014;9(12):e114666
Abstract
BACKGROUND Early fluid resuscitation is vital to patients with sepsis. However, the choice of fluid has been a hot topic of discussion. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the use of albumin-containing fluids for resuscitation in patients with sepsis was associated with a decreased mortality rate. METHODS We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to March 2014. The selection of eligible studies, assessment of methodological quality, and extraction of all relevant data were conducted by two authors independently. RESULTS In total, 15 RCTs were eligible for analysis. After pooling the data, we found there was no significant effect of albumin-containing fluids on mortality in patients with sepsis of any severity (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.87, 1.02 and RD: -0.01, 95% CI: -0.03, 0.01). The results were robust to subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses and trial sequential analyses. CONCLUSION The present meta-analysis did not demonstrate significant advantage of using albumin-containing fluids for resuscitation in patients with sepsis of any severity. Given the cost-effectiveness of using albumin, crystalloids should be the first choice for fluid resuscitation in septic patients.
-
7.
Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 versus crystalloid or albumin in patients with sepsis: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
Haase N, Perner A, Hennings LI, Siegemund M, Lauridsen B, Wetterslev M, Wetterslev J
Bmj. 2013;346:f839.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess the effects of fluid therapy with hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 versus crystalloid or albumin on mortality, kidney injury, bleeding, and serious adverse events in patients with sepsis. DESIGN Systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials. DATA SOURCES Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Biosis Previews, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, Current Controlled Trials, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Centerwatch to September 2012; hand search of reference lists and other systematic reviews; contact with authors and relevant pharmaceutical companies. STUDY SELECTION Eligible trials were randomised clinical trials comparing hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 with either crystalloid or human albumin in patients with sepsis. Published and unpublished trials were included irrespective of language and predefined outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data on methods, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias. Risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were estimated with fixed and random effects models. RESULTS Nine trials that randomised 3456 patients with sepsis were included. Overall, hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 versus crystalloid or albumin did not affect the relative risk of death (1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.22, 3414 patients, eight trials), but in the predefined analysis of trials with low risk of bias the relative risk of death was 1.11 (1.00 to 1.23, trial sequential analysis (TSA) adjusted 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.29, 3016 patients, four trials). In the hydroxyethyl starch group, renal replacement therapy was used more (1.36, 1.08 to 1.72, TSA adjusted 1.03 to 1.80, 1311 patients, five trials), and the relative risk of acute kidney injury was 1.18 (0.99 to 1.40, TSA adjusted 0.90 to 1.54, 994 patients, four trials). More patients in the hydroxyethyl starch group were transfused with red blood cells (1.29, 1.13 to 1.48, TSA adjusted 1.10 to 1.51, 973 patients, three trials), and more patients had serious adverse events (1.30, 1.02 to 1.67, TSA adjusted 0.93 to 1.83, 1069 patients, four trials). The transfused volume of red blood cells did not differ between the groups (mean difference 65 mL, 95% confidence interval -20 to 149 mL, three trials). CONCLUSION In conventional meta-analyses including recent trial data, hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 versus crystalloid or albumin increased the use of renal replacement therapy and transfusion with red blood cells, and resulted in more serious adverse events in patients with sepsis. It seems unlikely that hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 provides overall clinical benefit for patients with sepsis.
