Dataset Information

Albumin versus other fluids for fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis: a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: 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.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.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.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.

SUBMITTER: Jiang L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4256427 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Albumin versus other fluids for fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis: a meta-analysis.

Jiang Libing L Jiang Shouyin S Zhang Mao M Zheng Zhongjun Z Ma Yuefeng Y

PloS one 20141204 12

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to March 2014. The selection of eligible studie ...[more]

PMID: 25474401

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCrystalloids and different component colloids, used for volume resuscitation, are sometimes associated with various adverse effects. Clinical trial findings for such fluid types in different patients' conditions are conflicting. Whether the mortality benefit of balanced crystalloid than saline can be inferred from sepsis to other patient group is uncertain, and adverse effect profile is not comprehensive. This study aims to compare the survival benefits and adverse effects of seven fluid types with network meta-analysis in sepsis, surgical, trauma, and traumatic brain injury patients.MethodsSearched databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL) and reference lists of relevant articles occurred from inception until January 2020. Studies on critically ill adults requiring fluid resuscitation were included. Intervention studies reported on balanced crystalloid, saline, iso-oncotic albumin, hyperoncotic albumin, low molecular weight hydroxyethyl starch (L-HES), high molecular weight HES, and gelatin. Network meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects model to calculate odds ratio (OR) and mean difference. Risk of Bias tool 2.0 was used to assess bias. Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) web application was used to rate confidence in synthetic evidence.ResultsFifty-eight trials (n = 26,351 patients) were identified. Seven fluid types were evaluated. Among patients with sepsis and surgery, balanced crystalloids and albumin achieved better survival, fewer acute kidney injury, and smaller blood transfusion volumes than saline and L-HES. In those with sepsis, balanced crystalloids significantly reduced mortality more than saline (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.74-0.95) and L-HES (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.69-0.95) and reduced acute kidney injury more than L-HES (OR 0.80; 95% CI 0.65-0.99). However, they required the greatest resuscitation volume among all fluid types, especially in trauma patients. In patients with traumatic brain injury, saline and L-HES achieved lower mortality than albumin and balanced crystalloids; especially saline was significantly superior to iso-oncotic albumin (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.35-0.87).ConclusionsOur network meta-analysis found that balanced crystalloids and albumin decreased mortality more than L-HES and saline in sepsis patients; however, saline or L-HES was better than iso-oncotic albumin or balanced crystalloids in traumatic brain injury patients.Trial registrationPROSPERO website, registration number: CRD42018115641).

Project description:BackgroundThe objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the relationship between the chloride content of intravenous resuscitation fluids and patient outcomes in the perioperative or intensive care setting.MethodsSystematic searches were performed of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) databases in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Randomized clinical trials, controlled clinical trials and observational studies were included if they compared outcomes in acutely ill or surgical patients receiving either high-chloride (ion concentration greater than 111?mmol/l up to and including 154?mmol/l) or lower-chloride (concentration 111?mmol/l or less) crystalloids for resuscitation. Endpoints examined were mortality, measures of kidney function, serum chloride, hyperchloraemia/metabolic acidosis, blood transfusion volume, mechanical ventilation time, and length of hospital and intensive care unit stay. Risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) and confidence intervals were calculated using fixed-effect modelling.ResultsThe search identified 21 studies involving 6253 patients. High-chloride fluids did not affect mortality but were associated with a significantly higher risk of acute kidney injury (RR 1.64, 95 per cent c.i. 1.27 to 2.13; P?<?0.001) and hyperchloraemia/metabolic acidosis (RR 2.87, 1.95 to 4.21; P?<?0.001). High-chloride fluids were also associated with greater serum chloride (MD 3.70 (95 per cent c.i. 3.36 to 4.04) mmol/l; P?<?0.001), blood transfusion volume (SMD 0.35, 0.07 to 0.63; P?=?0.014) and mechanical ventilation time (SMD 0.15, 0.08 to 0.23; P?<?0.001). Sensitivity analyses excluding heavily weighted studies resulted in non-statistically significant effects for acute kidney injury and mechanical ventilation time.ConclusionA weak but significant association between higher chloride content fluids and unfavourable outcomes was found, but mortality was unaffected by chloride content.

Project description:ObjectiveTo 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.DesignSystematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.Data sourcesCochrane 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 selectionEligible 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 extractionTwo 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.ResultsNine 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).ConclusionIn 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.

Project description:ObjectivesRapid fluid resuscitation has become standard in sepsis care, despite "low-quality" evidence and absence of guidelines for populations "at risk" for volume overload. Our objectives include as follows: 1) identify predictors of reaching a 30 mL/kg crystalloid bolus within 3 hours of sepsis onset (30by3); 2) assess the impact of 30by3 and fluid dosing on clinical outcomes; 3) examine differences in perceived "at-risk" volume-sensitive populations, including end-stage renal disease, heart failure, obesity, advanced age, or with documentation of volume "overload" by bedside examination.DesignRetrospective cohort study. All outcome analyses controlled for sex, end-stage renal disease, heart failure, sepsis severity (severe sepsis vs septic shock), obesity, Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis score, and time to antibiotics.SettingUrban, tertiary care center between January 1, 2014, and May 31, 2017.PatientsEmergency Department treated adults (age ≥18 yr; n = 1,032) with severe sepsis or septic shock.InterventionsAdministration of IV fluids by bolus.Measurements and main resultsIn total, 509 patients received 30by3 (49.3%). Overall mortality was 17.1% (n = 176), with 20.4% mortality in the shock group. Patients who were elderly (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46-0.83), male (odds ratio, 0.66; CI, 0.49-0.87), obese (odds ratio, 0.18; CI, 0.13-0.25), or with end-stage renal disease (odds ratio, 0.23; CI, 0.13-0.40), heart failure (odds ratio, 0.42; CI, 0.29-0.60), or documented volume "overload" (odds ratio, 0.30; CI, 0.20-0.45) were less likely to achieve 30by3. Failure to meet 30by3 had increased odds of mortality (odds ratio, 1.52; CI, 1.03-2.24), delayed hypotension (odds ratio, 1.42; CI, 1.02-1.99), and increased ICU stay (~2 d) (β = 2.0; CI, 0.5-3.6), without differential effects for "at-risk" groups. Higher fluid volumes administered by 3 hours correlated with decreased mortality, with a plateau effect between 35 and 45 mL/kg (p < 0.05).ConclusionsFailure to reach 30by3 was associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality, irrespective of comorbidities. Predictors of inadequate resuscitation can be identified, potentially leading to interventions to improve survival. These findings are retrospective and require future validation.

Project description:RationaleThe feasibility and clinical outcomes of conservative fluid management after sepsis resuscitation remain unknown.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effect of a conservative fluid management protocol on fluid balance and intensive care unit (ICU)-free days among patients with sepsis.MethodsIn a single-center phase II/III randomized trial, we enrolled adults with suspected infection, ≥2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, and either shock (mean arterial pressure <60 mm Hg or vasopressors) or respiratory insufficiency (mechanical ventilation or oxygen saturation <97% and fraction of inspired oxygen ≥0.3). Patients were randomized 1:1 to usual care or a conservative fluid management protocol. The protocol restricted intravenous fluid administration during shock to treatment of oliguria or increasing vasopressor requirement. In the absence of shock, loop diuretic infusion targeted equal fluid input and output each study day. The primary outcomes were mean daily fluid balance (phase II) and ICU-free days (phase III).ResultsAt the completion of phase II (n = 30), the difference in mean daily fluid balance between groups (-398 mL) was less than the prespecified threshold (-500 mL) and the trial was stopped. Patients in the conservative fluid management (n = 15) and usual care (n = 15) groups experienced similar cumulative fluid input (8450 mL vs 7049 mL; P = .90) of which only 14% was intravenous crystalloid or colloid. Loop diuretic infusion occurred more frequently in the conservative fluid management group (40% vs 0%; P = .02), and cumulative fluid output was 10 645 mL in the conservative fluid management group compared to 6286 mL in the usual care group (P = .39). Hemodynamic, respiratory, and renal function did not differ between the groups.ConclusionsIn this phase II trial, a conservative fluid management protocol did not decrease mean daily fluid balance by more than 500 mL among patients with sepsis.RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov; NCT02159079.

Project description:Study objectiveAlthough fluid resuscitation is recommended by the Society of Critical Care Medicine Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines, risks of volume overload persist.The objective of this systematic review is to assess the effects of a restrictive fluid resuscitation approach in the septic patient both during and after the initial resuscitation period (30 ml/kg).DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomized controlled trials was conducted. Two blinded reviewers independently assessed and included studies that evaluated adult patients with sepsis involving a comparator group with an effective restrictive fluid resuscitation approach. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included rates of acute kidney injury (AKI), renal replacement therapy (RRT), ventilator days, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), duration of vasopressor therapy, and limb (or digital) ischemia.SettingPubMed and Medline databases were queried for the search.PatientsA total of eight trials in 2375 patients were included.InterventionEffective restrictive fluid resuscitation compared with standard of care.Measurements and main resultsThe risk of bias was high in six studies and low in two studies, and all studies implemented fluid restriction after a 30-ml/kg infusion of fluids. Fluid restriction did not significantly reduce mortality in all studies compared to usual care (37% vs. 40% with usual care; risk ratio [RR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.06, p = 0.23, I2 = 24%) or by TSA findings. There were no significant differences in rates of AKI or RRT (5 studies), LOS in ICU (4 studies) or hospital (3 studies), duration of vasopressor therapy (6 studies), or incidence of limb or digital ischemia (3 studies). However, fluid restriction significantly reduced ventilator days as evaluated in seven studies (mean difference - 1.25 days, 95% CI -1.92 to -0.58 days, p = 0.0003, I2 = 90%).ConclusionThis study demonstrated that a restrictive resuscitation strategy in sepsis resulted in no difference in mortality but may reduce ventilator days. Larger randomized trials are required to determine the optimal management of fluids in patients with sepsis.

Dataset Information

Albumin versus other fluids for fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis: a meta-analysis.

Publications

Albumin versus other fluids for fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis: a meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets