Active fluid de-resuscitation in critically ill patients with septic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Options
BORIS DOI
Publisher DOI
PubMed ID
36635127
Description
PURPOSE
To evaluate the impact of active fluid de-resuscitation on mortality in critically ill patients with septic shock.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed on PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane Library databases. Trials investigating active fluid de-resuscitation and reporting data on mortality in patients with septic shock were eligible. The primary objective was the impact of active de-resuscitation in patients with septic shock on short-term mortality. Secondary outcomes were whether de-resuscitation lead to a fluid separation, and the impact of de-resuscitation on patient-centred outcomes.
RESULTS
Thirteen trials (8,030 patients) were included in the systematic review, whereof 5 randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis. None of the RCTs showed a reduction in mortality with active de-resuscitation measures (relative risk (RR) 1.12 [95%-CI 0.84 - 1.48]). Fluid separation was achieved by two RCTs. Evidence from non-randomised trials suggests a mortality benefit with de-resuscitation strategies and indicates a trend towards a more negative fluid balance. Patient-centred outcomes were not influenced in the RCTs, and only one non-randomised trial revealed an impact on the duration of mechanical ventilation and renal replacement requirement (RRT).
CONCLUSION
We found no evidence for superiority of active fluid de-resuscitation compared to usual care regarding mortality, fluid balance or patient-centred outcomes in patients with septic shock. Current evidence is limited by the lack of high-quality RCTs in patients with septic shock, the small sample sizes and the heterogeneity of the applied de-resuscitation techniques. In addition, validity of the majority of RCTs is compromised by their inability to achieve fluid separation.
To evaluate the impact of active fluid de-resuscitation on mortality in critically ill patients with septic shock.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed on PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane Library databases. Trials investigating active fluid de-resuscitation and reporting data on mortality in patients with septic shock were eligible. The primary objective was the impact of active de-resuscitation in patients with septic shock on short-term mortality. Secondary outcomes were whether de-resuscitation lead to a fluid separation, and the impact of de-resuscitation on patient-centred outcomes.
RESULTS
Thirteen trials (8,030 patients) were included in the systematic review, whereof 5 randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis. None of the RCTs showed a reduction in mortality with active de-resuscitation measures (relative risk (RR) 1.12 [95%-CI 0.84 - 1.48]). Fluid separation was achieved by two RCTs. Evidence from non-randomised trials suggests a mortality benefit with de-resuscitation strategies and indicates a trend towards a more negative fluid balance. Patient-centred outcomes were not influenced in the RCTs, and only one non-randomised trial revealed an impact on the duration of mechanical ventilation and renal replacement requirement (RRT).
CONCLUSION
We found no evidence for superiority of active fluid de-resuscitation compared to usual care regarding mortality, fluid balance or patient-centred outcomes in patients with septic shock. Current evidence is limited by the lack of high-quality RCTs in patients with septic shock, the small sample sizes and the heterogeneity of the applied de-resuscitation techniques. In addition, validity of the majority of RCTs is compromised by their inability to achieve fluid separation.
Date of Publication
2023-03
Publication Type
Article
Subject(s)
600 - Technology::610 - Medicine & health
Keyword(s)
De-resuscitation Diuretics Fluid overload Fluid removal Renal replacement therapy Septic shock
Language(s)
en
Additional Credits
Universitätsklinik für Intensivmedizin
Universitäres Notfallzentrum
Series
European journal of internal medicine
Publisher
Elsevier
ISSN
1879-0828
Access(Rights)
open.access