Fluid resuscitation in sepsis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Rochwerg B, Alhazzani W, Sindi A, Heels-Ansdell D, Thabane L, Fox-Robichaud A, Mbuagbaw L, Szczeklik W, Alshamsi F, Altayyar S, et al
Annals of Internal Medicine. 2014;161((5):):347-355.
BACKGROUND Fluid resuscitation is the cornerstone of sepsis treatment. However, whether balanced or unbalanced crystalloids or natural or synthetic colloids confer a survival advantage is unclear. PURPOSE To examine the effect of different resuscitative fluids on mortality in patients with sepsis. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACP Journal Club, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through March 2014. STUDY SELECTION Randomized trials that evaluated different resuscitative fluids in adult patients with sepsis or septic shock and death. No language restrictions were applied. DATA EXTRACTION Two reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. Risk of bias for individual studies and quality of evidence were assessed. DATA SYNTHESIS 14 studies (18916 patients) were included with 15 direct comparisons. Network meta-analysis at the 4-node level showed higher mortality with starches than with crystalloids (high confidence) and lower mortality with albumin than with crystalloids (moderate confidence) or starches (moderate confidence). Network meta-analysis at the 6-node level showed lower mortality with albumin than with saline (moderate confidence) and low-molecular-weight starch (low confidence) and with balanced crystalloids than with saline (low confidence) and low- and high-molecular-weight starches (moderate confidence). LIMITATIONS These trials were heterogeneous in case mix, fluids evaluated, duration of fluid exposure, and risk of bias. Imprecise estimates for several comparisons in this network meta-analysis contribute to low confidence in most estimates of effect. CONCLUSION Among patients with sepsis, resuscitation with balanced crystalloids or albumin compared with other fluids seems to be associated with reduced mortality. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE The Hamilton Chapter of the Canadian Intensive Care Foundation and the Critical Care Medicine Residency Program and Critical Care Division Alternate Funding Plan at McMaster University.
Fluid resuscitation with 5% albumin versus normal saline in early septic shock: a pilot randomized, controlled trial
McIntyre LA, Fergusson DA, Cook DJ, Rowe BH, Bagshaw SM, Easton D, Emond M, Finfer S, Fox-Robichaud A, Gaudert C, et al
Journal of Critical Care. 2012;27((3):):317.e1-6.
PURPOSE Randomized, controlled trials of fluid resuscitation in early septic shock face many logistic challenges. We describe the Fluid Resuscitation with 5% albumin versus Normal Saline in Early Septic Shock (PRECISE) pilot trial study design and report feasibility of patient recruitment. MATERIALS AND METHODS Six Canadian academic centers enrolled adult patients with early suspected septic shock from the emergency department and intensive care unit department. Consent was deferred. Using concealed allocation, participants were randomized to either 5% albumin or 0.9% sodium chloride. Blinded fluid resuscitation started immediately and continued for 7 days in the intensive care unit. Target recruitment was established a priori at 2 patients per site per month. RESULTS Fifty-one patients were enrolled; 50 patients received study fluid. We recruited a median of 2.5 patients (interquartile range [IQR], 1.5-3.0) per site per month into the trial. Median age and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores were 64.5 (IQR, 55.0-78.0) and 25.0 (IQR, 20.0-29.0), respectively. Most patients (n = 37 [74.0%]) were enrolled from the emergency department for a median of 1.6 hours (IQR, 0.8-3.5 hours) from their first hypotensive event and received a median of 2.4 L (IQR, 1.5-3.0 L) of resuscitation fluid before inclusion. Consent was deferred for 44 patients (89.8%). CONCLUSIONS Patient recruitment into the PRECISE pilot trial met our prespecified feasibility targets, and the PRECISE team is planning the larger trial. Copyright 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.