Dataset Information

Loop diuretics in adult intensive care patients with fluid overload: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Fluid overload is a risk factor for organ dysfunction and death in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but no guidelines exist for its management. We systematically reviewed benefits and harms of a single loop diuretic, the predominant treatment used for fluid overload in these patients.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) of a single loop diuretic vs. other interventions reported in randomised clinical trials, adhering to our published protocol, the Cochrane Handbook, and PRISMA statement. We assessed the risks of bias with the ROB2-tool and certainty of evidence with GRADE. This study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42020184799).

Results

We included 10 trials (804 participants), all at overall high risk of bias. For loop diuretics vs. placebo/no intervention, we found no difference in all-cause mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-1.06; 4 trials; 359 participants; I² = 0%; TSA-adjusted CI 0.15-3.48; very low certainty of evidence). Fewer serious adverse events were registered in the group treated with loop diuretics (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-0.99; 6 trials; 476 participants; I² = 0%; very low certainty of evidence), though contested by TSA (TSA-adjusted CI 0.55-1.20).

Conclusions

The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of loop diuretics on mortality and serious adverse events in adult ICU patients with fluid overload. Loop diuretics may reduce the occurrence of these outcomes, but large randomised placebo-controlled trials at low risk of bias are needed.

SUBMITTER: Wichmann S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9192894 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Loop diuretics in adult intensive care patients with fluid overload: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Wichmann Sine S Barbateskovic Marija M Liang Ning N Itenov Theis Skovsgaard TS Berthelsen Rasmus Ehrenfried RE Lindschou Jane J Perner Anders A Gluud Christian C Bestle Morten Heiberg MH

Annals of intensive care 20220613 1

<h4>Background</h4>Fluid overload is a risk factor for organ dysfunction and death in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but no guidelines exist for its management. We systematically reviewed benefits and harms of a single loop diuretic, the predominant treatment used for fluid overload in these patients.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) of a single loop diuretic vs. other interventions reported in randomised clinical trials, ...[more]

PMID: 35696008

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate colloids and crystalloids used in perioperative fluid therapy for cardiac surgery patients to further investigate the optimal management strategies of different solutions.MethodRCTs about adult surgical patients allocated to receive perioperative fluid therapy for electronic databases, including Ovid MEDLINE, EMBase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were searched up to February 15, 2023.ResultsNone of the results based on network comparisons, including mortality, transfuse PLA, postoperative chest tube output over the first 24 h following surgery, and length of hospital stay, were statistically significant. Due to the small number of included studies, the results, including acute kidney injury, serum creatinine, serum microglobulin, and blood urea nitrogen, are from the direct comparison. For transfusion of RBCs, significant differences were observed in the comparisons of 3% gelatine vs. 6% HES 200/0.5, 4% albumin vs. 5% albumin, 4% gelatine vs. 5% albumin, 5% albumin vs. 6% HES 200/0.5, and 6% HES 130/0.4 vs. 6% HES 200/0.5. In transfusion of FFP, significant differences were observed in comparisons of 3% gelatine vs. 4% gelatine, 3% gelatine vs. 6% HES 200/0.5, 5% albumin vs. 6% HES 200/0.5, 4% gelatine vs. 5% albumin, 4% gelatine vs. 6% HES 200/0.4, and 6% HES 130/0.4 vs. 6% HES 200/0.5. For urinary output at 24 h after surgery, the results are deposited in the main text.ConclusionThis study showed that 3% gelatin and 5% albumin can reduce the transfuse RBC and FFP. In addition, the use of hypertonic saline solution can increase urine output, and 5% albumin and 6% HES can shorten the length of ICU stay. However, none of the perioperative fluids showed an objective advantage in various outcomes, including mortality, transfuse PLA, postoperative chest tube output over the first 24 h following surgery, and length of hospital stay. The reliable and sufficient evidences on the injury of the kidney, including acute kidney injury, serum creatinine, serum microglobulin, and blood urea nitrogen, was still lacking. In general, perioperative fluids had advantages and disadvantages, and there were no evidences to support the recommendation of the optimal perioperative fluid for cardiac surgery.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the effect of targeting intensive glycaemic control versus conventional glycaemic control on all cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, microvascular complications, and severe hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes.DesignSystematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised trials.Data sourcesCochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and CINAHL to December 2010; hand search of reference lists and conference proceedings; contacts with authors, relevant pharmaceutical companies, and the US Food and Drug Administration.Study selectionRandomised clinical trials comparing targeted intensive glycaemic control with conventional glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Published and unpublished trials in all languages were included, irrespective of predefined outcomes.Data extractionTwo reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data related to study methods, interventions, outcomes, risk of bias, and adverse events. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated with fixed and random effects models.ResultsFourteen clinical trials that randomised 28,614 participants with type 2 diabetes (15,269 to intensive control and 13,345 to conventional control) were included. Intensive glycaemic control did not significantly affect the relative risks of all cause (1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.13; 28,359 participants, 12 trials) or cardiovascular mortality (1.11, 0.92 to 1.35; 28,359 participants, 12 trials). Trial sequential analyses rejected a relative risk reduction above 10% for all cause mortality and showed insufficient data on cardiovascular mortality. The risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction may be reduced (relative risk 0.85, 0.76 to 0.95; P=0.004; 28,111 participants, 8 trials), but this finding was not confirmed in trial sequential analysis. Intensive glycaemic control showed a reduction of the relative risks for the composite microvascular outcome (0.88, 0.79 to 0.97; P=0.01; 25,600 participants, 3 trials) and retinopathy (0.80, 0.67 to 0.94; P=0.009; 10,793 participants, 7 trials), but trial sequential analyses showed that sufficient evidence had not yet been reached. The estimate of an effect on the risk of nephropathy (relative risk 0.83, 0.64 to 1.06; 27,769 participants, 8 trials) was not statistically significant. The risk of severe hypoglycaemia was significantly increased when intensive glycaemic control was targeted (relative risk 2.39, 1.71 to 3.34; 27,844 participants, 9 trials); trial sequential analysis supported a 30% increased relative risk of severe hypoglycaemia.ConclusionIntensive glycaemic control does not seem to reduce all cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. Data available from randomised clinical trials remain insufficient to prove or refute a relative risk reduction for cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, composite microvascular complications, or retinopathy at a magnitude of 10%. Intensive glycaemic control increases the relative risk of severe hypoglycaemia by 30%.

Project description:IntroductionFluid overload in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is associated with higher mortality. There are few randomized controlled trials to guide physicians in treating patients with fluid overload in the ICU, and no guidelines exist. We aimed to elucidate how ICU physicians from Nordic countries define, assess, and treat fluid overload in the ICU.Materials and methodsWe developed an online questionnaire with 18 questions. The questions were pre-tested and revised by specialists in intensive care medicine. Through a network of national coordinators. The survey was distributed to a wide range of Nordic ICU physicians. The distribution started on January 5th, 2022 and ended on May 6th, 2022.ResultsWe received a total of 1,066 responses from Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Iceland. When assessing fluid status, respondents applied clinical parameters such as clinical examination findings, cumulative fluid balance, body weight, and urine output more frequently than cardiac/lung ultrasound, radiological appearances, and cardiac output monitoring. A large proportion of the respondents agreed that a 5% increase or more in body weight from baseline supported the diagnosis of fluid overload. The preferred de-resuscitation strategy was diuretics (91%), followed by minimization of maintenance (76%) and resuscitation fluids (71%). The majority declared that despite mild hypotension, mild hypernatremia, and ongoing vasopressor, they would not withhold treatment of fluid overload and would continue diuretics. The respondents were divided when it came to treating fluid overload with loop diuretics in patients receiving noradrenaline. Around 1% would not administer noradrenaline and diuretics simultaneously and 35% did not have a fixed upper limit for the dosage. The remaining respondents 63% reported different upper limits of noradrenaline infusion (0.05-0.50 mcg/kg/min) when administering loop diuretics.ConclusionSelf-reported practices among Nordic ICU physicians when assessing, diagnosing, and treating fluid overload reveals variability in the practice. A 5% increase in body weight was considered a minimum to support the diagnosis of fluid overload. Clinical examination findings were preferred for assessing, diagnosing and treating fluid overload, and diuretics were the preferred treatment modality.

Project description:BackgroundIntravenous administration of fluids is an essential part of critical care. While some fluid administration is likely beneficial, there is increasing observational evidence that the development of fluid overload is associated with increased mortality. There are no randomised trials to confirm this association in patients with acute kidney injury. We aim to perform a pilot trial to test the feasibility of forced fluid removal compared to standard care in patients with acute kidney injury and severe fluid overload, the FFAKI trial.MethodsThen FFAKI trial is a pilot, multicentre, randomised clinical trial recruiting adult intensive care patients with acute kidney injury and fluid overload, defined as more than 10% of ideal bodyweight. Patients are randomised with concealed allocation to either standard care or forced fluid removal with a therapeutic target of negative net fluid balance ≥1 mL/kg/h. The safety of fluid removal is continually evaluated according to predefined criteria of hypoperfusion: lactate ≥4 mmol/L, mean arterial pressure <50 mmHg or mottling beyond the edge of the kneecaps. If patients fulfil one of these criteria, fluid removal is suspended until hypoperfusion has resolved. The primary outcome measure is fluid balance at 5 days after randomisation and secondary outcomes include mean daily fluid balance, fluid balance at discharge from the intensive care unit, time to neutral fluid balance, number of serious adverse reactions and number of protocol violations. All patients are followed for 90 days.DiscussionThe FFAKI trial started in October 2015 and, when completed, will provide data to evaluate whether a large trial of forced fluid removal in critically ill patients is feasible. Our primary outcome will show if the experimental intervention leads to a clinically relevant difference in fluid balance, which could prove beneficial in intensive care patients with acute kidney injury.Trial registrationEudraCT, identifier: 2015-001701-13. Registered on 19 September 2015; ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02458157 . Registered on 21 May 2015; Danish Ethics Committee, identifier: H-15009589H. Registered on 22 September 2015; Danish Health and Medicines Authority, identifier: 2015070013. Registered on 11 August 2015.

Dataset Information

Loop diuretics in adult intensive care patients with fluid overload: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Loop diuretics in adult intensive care patients with fluid overload: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets