Dataset Information

Resuscitation Guided by Volume Responsiveness Does Not Reduce Mortality in Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Resuscitation with IV fluids is a critical component in the management of sepsis. Although the optimal volume of IV fluid is unknown, there is evidence that excessive administration can be deleterious. Static measures of volume status have not proven to be meaningful resuscitative endpoints. Determination of volume responsiveness has putative benefits over static measures, but its effect on outcomes is unknown. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine if resuscitation with a volume responsiveness-guided approach leads to improved outcomes in septic patients.

Data sources

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from inception until April 2018.

Study selection

Prospective studies of patients with sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock that compared volume responsiveness-guided fluid resuscitation to standard techniques and reported mortality data.

Data extraction

We extracted study details, patient characteristics, volume responsiveness assessment method, and mortality data.

Data synthesis

Of the 1,224 abstracts and 31 full-texts evaluated, four studies (total 365 patients) met inclusion criteria. Using random effects modeling, the pooled odds ratio for mortality at time of longest follow-up with a volume responsiveness-guided strategy was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.49-1.54). Pooling of clinical data was not possibly owing to heterogeneity of reporting in individual studies.

Conclusions

We found no significant difference in mortality between septic patients resuscitated with a volume responsiveness-guided approach compared with standard resuscitative strategies. It remains unclear whether the findings are due to the small sample size or a true lack of efficacy of a volume responsiveness-guided approach.

SUBMITTER: Ehrman RR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7063966 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Resuscitation Guided by Volume Responsiveness Does Not Reduce Mortality in Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis.

Ehrman Robert R RR Gallien John Z JZ Smith Reid K RK Akers Katherine G KG Malik Adrienne N AN Harrison Nicholas E NE Welch Robert D RD Levy Phillip D PD Sherwin Robert L RL

Critical care explorations 20190523 5

Resuscitation with IV fluids is a critical component in the management of sepsis. Although the optimal volume of IV fluid is unknown, there is evidence that excessive administration can be deleterious. Static measures of volume status have not proven to be meaningful resuscitative endpoints. Determination of volume responsiveness has putative benefits over static measures, but its effect on outcomes is unknown. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine if resuscitatio ...[more]

PMID: 32166259

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:RationaleImmunosuppressive medical conditions are risk factors for mortality from severe infections. It is unknown whether hospital characteristics affect this risk.ObjectivesTo determine whether the odds of death for an immunosuppressed patient with sepsis relative to a nonimmunosuppressed patient with sepsis varies according to the hospital's yearly case volume of immunosuppressed patients with sepsis.MethodsPatients with sepsis at hospitals in the Vizient database were characterized as immunosuppressed or not immunosuppressed on the basis of diagnosis codes and medication use. Hospitals were grouped into quartiles based on their average volumes of immunosuppressed patients with sepsis per year. Multilevel logistic regression with clustering of patients by hospital was used to determine whether the odds of in-hospital death from sepsis owing to a suppressed immune state varied by hospital quartile.ResultsThere were 350,183 patients with sepsis at 60 hospitals in the Vizient database from 2010 to 2012. Immunosuppressed patients with sepsis at the 15 hospitals in the lowest quartile (64 to 224 immunosuppressed patients with sepsis per year) had an increased odds of in-hospital death relative to nonimmunosuppressed patients with sepsis at these hospitals (adjusted odds ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.50; P < 0.001). The odds of in-hospital death for immunosuppressed patients with sepsis relative to nonimmunosuppressed patients with sepsis was similar for patients at hospitals in the second, third, and fourth quartiles (225 to 1,056 immunosuppressed patients with sepsis per year). The adjusted odds of death from sepsis owing to a suppressed immune state of 1.21 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.25; P < 0.001) for patients at these 45 hospitals was significantly less than for patients at the 15 hospitals in the lowest quartile (P = 0.004 for difference).ConclusionsThe risk of death from sepsis owing to a suppressed immune state was greatest at hospitals with the lowest volume of immunosuppressed patients with sepsis. Further study is needed to determine whether this finding is related to differences in patient characteristics or in care delivery at hospitals with different amounts of exposure to immunosuppressed patients.

Project description:ObjectivesSignificant practice variation exists in the amount of resuscitative IV fluid given to patients with sepsis. Current research suggests equipoise between a tightly restrictive or more liberal strategy but data is lacking on a wider range of resuscitation practices. We sought to examine the relationship between a wide range of fluid resuscitation practices and sepsis mortality and then identify the primary driver of this practice variation.DesignRetrospective analysis of the Premier Healthcare Database.SettingSix hundred twelve U.S. hospitals.PatientsPatients with sepsis and septic shock admitted from the emergency department to the ICU from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019.InterventionsThe volume of resuscitative IV fluid administered before the end of hospital day- 1 and mortality.Measurements and main resultsIn total, 190,682 patients with sepsis and septic shock were included in the analysis. Based upon patient characteristics and illness severity, we predicted that physicians should prescribe patients with sepsis a narrow mean range of IV fluid (95% range, 3.6-4.5 L). Instead, we observed wide variation in the mean IV fluids administered (95% range, 1.7-7.4 L). After splitting the patients into five groups based upon attending physician practice, we observed patients in the moderate group (4.0 L; interquartile range [IQR], 2.4-5.1 L) experienced a 2.5% reduction in risk-adjusted mortality compared with either the very low (1.6 L; IQR, 1.0-2.5 L) or very high (6.1 L; IQR, 4.0-9.0 L) fluid groups p < 0.01). An analysis of within- and between-hospital IV fluid resuscitation practices showed that physician variation within hospitals instead of practice differences between hospitals accounts for the observed variation.ConclusionsIndividual physician practice drives excess variation in the amount of IV fluid given to patients with sepsis. A moderate approach to IV fluid resuscitation is associated with decreased sepsis mortality and should be tested in future randomized controlled trials.

Project description:ObjectiveThe important effect modifiers of high disease severity on the relationship between the different volumes of early fluid resuscitation and prognosis in septic patients are unknown. Thus, this study was designed to assess whether the efficacy of different volumes in the early fluid resuscitation treatment of sepsis is affected by disease severity.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingAdult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with sepsis from 2001 to 2012 in the MIMIC-III database.InterventionsThe intravenous fluid volume within 6 hours after the sepsis diagnosis serves as the primary exposure. The patients were divided into the standard (≥ 30 mL/kg) and restrict (<30 mL/kg) groups. Disease severity was defined by the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score at ICU admission. Propensity score matching analysis was performed to ensure the robustness of our results.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary endpoint of this study was 28-day mortality. Days without needing mechanical ventilation or vasopressor administration within 28-day of ICU admission serving as the secondary endpoint.ResultsIn total, 5154 consecutive individuals were identified in data analysis, 776 patients had a primary end-point event, 386 (49.68%) in the restrict group and 387 (49.81%) in the standard group. Compared with the restrict group, the standard group had higher 28-day mortality (adjusted HR, 1.32; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.70; p=0.03) in the subgroup with a sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score ≥10. By contrast, the risk of mortality reduction was modest in the subgroup with an SOFA score <10 (adjusted HR, 0.85; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.03; p=0.10). The effect of the interaction between the SOFA score and fluid resuscitation strategies on the 28-day mortality was significant (p=0.0035).ConclusionsHigh disease severity modifies the relationship between the volume of fluid resuscitation and mortality in patients with sepsis in the ICU; future studies investigating this interaction are warranted.

Dataset Information

Resuscitation Guided by Volume Responsiveness Does Not Reduce Mortality in Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis.

Data sources

Study selection

Data extraction

Data synthesis

Conclusions

Publications

Resuscitation Guided by Volume Responsiveness Does Not Reduce Mortality in Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets