Conservative versus liberal fluid resuscitation for septic patients at risk for fluid overload: A systematic review with meta-analysis

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Journal of critical care Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-28 DOI:10.1016/j.jcrc.2025.155045
Aadil Bharwani , Joanna C. Dionne , María L. Pérez , Marina Englesakis , Tine Sylvest Meyhoff , Praleene Sivapalan , Fernando G. Zampieri , M. Elizabeth Wilcox
{"title":"Conservative versus liberal fluid resuscitation for septic patients at risk for fluid overload: A systematic review with meta-analysis","authors":"Aadil Bharwani ,&nbsp;Joanna C. Dionne ,&nbsp;María L. Pérez ,&nbsp;Marina Englesakis ,&nbsp;Tine Sylvest Meyhoff ,&nbsp;Praleene Sivapalan ,&nbsp;Fernando G. Zampieri ,&nbsp;M. Elizabeth Wilcox","doi":"10.1016/j.jcrc.2025.155045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Intravenous fluid resuscitation forms a crucial part of the sepsis bundle. However, the perception is that patients with comorbidities such as congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and cirrhosis receive lower volumes due to concerns regarding potential for fluid overload. We review outcomes relating to resuscitation with conservative versus liberal volumes in specific patient populations.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We searched MEDLINE, Embase+Embase Classic, Cochrane library, Web of Science, CINAHL Complete, and <span><span>ClinicalTrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg></span> for studies that compared outcomes related to different volumes of resuscitation in adult patients with sepsis, along with congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, cirrhosis. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality up to 30 days post-discharge. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, intubation rates and duration, and use of vasopressors.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 37 observational studies were included. We found no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.01; 95 % Confidence Interval [CI] 0.86–1.19), rates of ICU admission (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.89; 95 % CI 0.70–1.11), hospital length of stay (Mean Difference [MD] -0.01; 95 % -0.18-0.15), ICU length of stay (MD -0.06; 95 % CI -0.30-0.18), intubation rates (OR 1.00; 95 % 0.76–1.32), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 0.01; 95 % CI -0.31-0.32) or use of vasopressors (RR 0.81; 95 % CI 0.64–1.02).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Among patients with comorbid conditions presenting with sepsis, we found no differences in outcomes related to the volume of fluid administered. Further evidence is needed to guide decisions regarding volume of fluid to administer in these patient populations given the lack of high certainty evidence.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15451,"journal":{"name":"Journal of critical care","volume":"87 ","pages":"Article 155045"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of critical care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883944125000322","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Intravenous fluid resuscitation forms a crucial part of the sepsis bundle. However, the perception is that patients with comorbidities such as congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and cirrhosis receive lower volumes due to concerns regarding potential for fluid overload. We review outcomes relating to resuscitation with conservative versus liberal volumes in specific patient populations.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Embase+Embase Classic, Cochrane library, Web of Science, CINAHL Complete, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies that compared outcomes related to different volumes of resuscitation in adult patients with sepsis, along with congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, cirrhosis. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality up to 30 days post-discharge. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, intubation rates and duration, and use of vasopressors.

Results

A total of 37 observational studies were included. We found no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.01; 95 % Confidence Interval [CI] 0.86–1.19), rates of ICU admission (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.89; 95 % CI 0.70–1.11), hospital length of stay (Mean Difference [MD] -0.01; 95 % -0.18-0.15), ICU length of stay (MD -0.06; 95 % CI -0.30-0.18), intubation rates (OR 1.00; 95 % 0.76–1.32), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 0.01; 95 % CI -0.31-0.32) or use of vasopressors (RR 0.81; 95 % CI 0.64–1.02).

Conclusions

Among patients with comorbid conditions presenting with sepsis, we found no differences in outcomes related to the volume of fluid administered. Further evidence is needed to guide decisions regarding volume of fluid to administer in these patient populations given the lack of high certainty evidence.
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
脓毒症患者体液超载风险的保守与自由液体复苏:荟萃分析的系统回顾
背景:静脉液体复苏是脓毒症治疗的重要组成部分。然而,人们的看法是,有合并症的患者,如充血性心力衰竭、慢性肾病和肝硬化,由于担心潜在的液体过载,接受的剂量较低。我们回顾了在特定患者群体中与保守和自由容量复苏相关的结果。方法:我们检索MEDLINE、Embase+Embase Classic、Cochrane library、Web of Science、CINAHL Complete和ClinicalTrials.gov,以比较成人脓毒症、充血性心力衰竭、慢性肾病、肝硬化患者不同复苏量相关的研究。主要终点为出院后30天的全因死亡率。次要结局包括住院时间、插管率和持续时间以及血管加压药物的使用。结果共纳入37项观察性研究。我们发现全因死亡率无统计学差异(优势比[OR] 1.01;95%可信区间[CI] 0.86-1.19), ICU住院率(风险比[RR] 0.89;95% CI 0.70-1.11)、住院时间(平均差异[MD] -0.01;95% -0.18-0.15), ICU住院时间(MD -0.06;95% CI -0.30-0.18),插管率(OR 1.00;95% 0.76-1.32)、机械通气时间(MD 0.01;95% CI -0.31-0.32)或使用血管加压药物(RR 0.81;95% ci 0.64-1.02)。结论:在伴有脓毒症的合并症患者中,我们发现与给液量相关的结果没有差异。由于缺乏高确定性的证据,需要进一步的证据来指导在这些患者群体中施用的液体量的决定。
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
Journal of critical care
Journal of critical care 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
2.70%
发文量
237
审稿时长
23 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Critical Care, the official publication of the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine (WFSICCM), is a leading international, peer-reviewed journal providing original research, review articles, tutorials, and invited articles for physicians and allied health professionals involved in treating the critically ill. The Journal aims to improve patient care by furthering understanding of health systems research and its integration into clinical practice. The Journal will include articles which discuss: All aspects of health services research in critical care System based practice in anesthesiology, perioperative and critical care medicine The interface between anesthesiology, critical care medicine and pain Integrating intraoperative management in preparation for postoperative critical care management and recovery Optimizing patient management, i.e., exploring the interface between evidence-based principles or clinical insight into management and care of complex patients The team approach in the OR and ICU System-based research Medical ethics Technology in medicine Seminars discussing current, state of the art, and sometimes controversial topics in anesthesiology, critical care medicine, and professional education Residency Education.
期刊最新文献
Early hemodynamic phenotyping in sepsis using transthoracic echocardiography: A proof-of-concept study in a north African ICU Green intensive care in an upper-middle-income country: A national survey of awareness, practices and barriers among ICU physicians in Turkey The “gray zone” of intensive care: ICU admission beyond a binary decision Discontinuation of continuous kidney replacement therapy in patients with acute kidney injury: A pilot study Major publications in the critical care pharmacotherapy literature: 2025
×
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