Effect of restrictive fluid resuscitation on severe acute kidney injury in septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL BMJ Open Pub Date : 2025-02-16 DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086367
Xin-Er Cai, Wan-Ting Ling, Xiao-Tian Cai, Ming-Kun Yan, Yan-Jie Zhang, Jing-Yuan Xu
{"title":"Effect of restrictive fluid resuscitation on severe acute kidney injury in septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Xin-Er Cai, Wan-Ting Ling, Xiao-Tian Cai, Ming-Kun Yan, Yan-Jie Zhang, Jing-Yuan Xu","doi":"10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086367","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Sepsis-associated hypotension or shock is a critical stage of sepsis, and a current clinical emergency that has high mortality and multiple complications. A new restrictive fluid resuscitation therapy has been applied, and its influence on patients' renal function remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the influence of restrictive fluid resuscitation on incidence of severe acute kidney injury (AKI) in adult patients with sepsis hypotension and shock compared with usual care.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched through 1 November 2024.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials that compared restrictive fluid resuscitation with liberal fluid therapy on patients with sepsis-associated hypotension and shock, to find out their effect on the incidence of severe AKI. Severe AKI was defined as the AKI network score 2-3 or Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes stages 2 and 3.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>Two independent reviewers used standardised methods to search, screen and code included trials. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Systematic Review Handbook for randomised clinical trials. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects models. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses, trial sequential analysis (TSA), Egger's test and the trim-and-fill method were performed. Findings were summarised in GRADE evidence profiles and synthesised qualitatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine trials (3718 participants) were included in this research and the analysis was conducted in random effects model. There was a significant difference in the incidence of severe AKI (risk ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, p=0.006; I<sup>2</sup>=0%) and the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -41.14, 95% CI -68.80 to -13.48; p=0.004; I<sup>2</sup>=74%) between patients receiving restrictive fluid resuscitation and patients receiving liberal fluid resuscitation. TSA showed that the cumulative amount of participants met the required information size, the positive conclusion had been confirmed. The GRADE assessment results demonstrated moderate confidence in the incidence of severe AKI, as well as the results of all second outcomes except the Intensive Care Unit length of stay (ICU LOS), which received limited confidence. The result of incidence of worse AKI was rated as of high certainty.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>It is conclusive that fluid restriction strategy is superior to usual care when it comes to reducing the incidence of severe AKI in sepsis-associated hypotension and shock. Shorter duration of ventilation is concerned with fluid restriction as well, but the heterogeneity is substantial. GRADE assessments confirmed moderate and above certainty. Traditional fluid resuscitation therapy has the potential to be further explored for improvements to be more precise and appropriate for a better prognosis.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42023449239.</p>","PeriodicalId":9158,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open","volume":"15 2","pages":"e086367"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11831265/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086367","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Sepsis-associated hypotension or shock is a critical stage of sepsis, and a current clinical emergency that has high mortality and multiple complications. A new restrictive fluid resuscitation therapy has been applied, and its influence on patients' renal function remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the influence of restrictive fluid resuscitation on incidence of severe acute kidney injury (AKI) in adult patients with sepsis hypotension and shock compared with usual care.

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Data sources: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched through 1 November 2024.

Eligibility criteria: We included randomised controlled trials that compared restrictive fluid resuscitation with liberal fluid therapy on patients with sepsis-associated hypotension and shock, to find out their effect on the incidence of severe AKI. Severe AKI was defined as the AKI network score 2-3 or Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes stages 2 and 3.

Data extraction and synthesis: Two independent reviewers used standardised methods to search, screen and code included trials. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Systematic Review Handbook for randomised clinical trials. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects models. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses, trial sequential analysis (TSA), Egger's test and the trim-and-fill method were performed. Findings were summarised in GRADE evidence profiles and synthesised qualitatively.

Results: Nine trials (3718 participants) were included in this research and the analysis was conducted in random effects model. There was a significant difference in the incidence of severe AKI (risk ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, p=0.006; I2=0%) and the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -41.14, 95% CI -68.80 to -13.48; p=0.004; I2=74%) between patients receiving restrictive fluid resuscitation and patients receiving liberal fluid resuscitation. TSA showed that the cumulative amount of participants met the required information size, the positive conclusion had been confirmed. The GRADE assessment results demonstrated moderate confidence in the incidence of severe AKI, as well as the results of all second outcomes except the Intensive Care Unit length of stay (ICU LOS), which received limited confidence. The result of incidence of worse AKI was rated as of high certainty.

Conclusions: It is conclusive that fluid restriction strategy is superior to usual care when it comes to reducing the incidence of severe AKI in sepsis-associated hypotension and shock. Shorter duration of ventilation is concerned with fluid restriction as well, but the heterogeneity is substantial. GRADE assessments confirmed moderate and above certainty. Traditional fluid resuscitation therapy has the potential to be further explored for improvements to be more precise and appropriate for a better prognosis.

Prospero registration number: CRD42023449239.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
限制性液体复苏对感染性休克重症急性肾损伤的影响:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:脓毒症相关性低血压或休克是脓毒症的一个关键阶段,是目前具有高死亡率和多种并发症的临床急症。一种新的限制性液体复苏疗法已被应用,其对患者肾功能的影响尚不清楚。本研究的目的是评估限制性液体复苏对脓毒症、低血压和休克的成人患者发生严重急性肾损伤(AKI)的影响。设计:采用推荐、评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)方法进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。数据来源:PubMed, Embase, Web of Science和Cochrane Library检索截止日期为2024年11月1日。入选标准:我们纳入了随机对照试验,比较了限制性液体复苏与自由液体治疗对脓毒症相关低血压和休克患者的影响,以了解它们对严重AKI发生率的影响。重度AKI被定义为AKI网络评分2-3或肾脏疾病改善全球结局2期和3期。数据提取和综合:两名独立审稿人使用标准化方法对纳入的试验进行检索、筛选和编码。使用Cochrane随机临床试验系统评价手册评估偏倚风险。采用随机效应模型进行meta分析。进行敏感性和亚组分析、试验序贯分析(TSA)、Egger检验和trim- fill法。研究结果总结在GRADE证据档案中,并进行定性合成。结果:本研究共纳入9项试验(3718名受试者),采用随机效应模型进行分析。两组严重AKI发生率差异有统计学意义(风险比0.87,95% CI 0.79 ~ 0.96, p=0.006;I2=0%)和机械通气持续时间(平均差为-41.14,95% CI为-68.80 ~ -13.48;p = 0.004;I2=74%),限制性液体复苏和自由液体复苏患者之间的差异。TSA显示,参与者的累计信息量达到了所要求的信息量,积极的结论得到了证实。GRADE评估结果对严重AKI的发生率有中等置信度,除重症监护病房住院时间(ICU LOS)外,所有第二结局的结果均有有限置信度。加重AKI发生率的结果被评为高确定性。结论:在脓毒症相关的低血压和休克中,液体限制策略在减少严重AKI发生率方面优于常规护理。较短的通气时间也与流体限制有关,但异质性很大。GRADE评估确定为中等及以上确定性。传统的液体复苏疗法有进一步探索的潜力,以改善更精确和适当的预后。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42023449239。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open
BMJ Open MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
4510
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open is an online, open access journal, dedicated to publishing medical research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas. The journal publishes all research study types, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Publishing procedures are built around fully open peer review and continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready.
期刊最新文献
Prevalence and factors associated with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia among men aged 50 years and above in Coimbatore district, Tamil Nadu, India: a community-based cross-sectional study. Evaluating the impact of a medical telephone helpline and the use of a structured initial assessment on demand for acute and emergency care in Germany: an ecological study using secondary data. Listening effort among adult cochlear implant users: a protocol for a systematic review and measure-specific meta-analysis. Association between high-risk drinking and cardiovascular health based on Life's Essential 8: analysis using 2016-2021 Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data. Burden of atherosclerosis, cardiovascular risk factors and atrial fibrillation in individuals with covert brain infarcts in late midlife: the Akershus Cardiac Examination 1950 Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1