Restrictive Versus Liberal Fluid Regimen in Refractory Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

被引:3
|
作者
Abdelbaky, Ahmed M. [1 ]
Elmasry, Wael G. [2 ]
Awad, Ahmed H. [1 ]
机构
[1] Rashid Hosp, Intens Care Unit, Crit Care, Dubai Acad Hlth Corp, Dubai, U Arab Emirates
[2] Rashid Hosp, Intens Care Unit, Anesthesiol, Dubai Acad Hlth Corp, Dubai, U Arab Emirates
关键词
restrictive fluid regimen; liberal fluid regimen; septic shock; sepsis; fluid regimen; INITIAL MANAGEMENT; RESUSCITATION; DEFINITIONS; ADULTS;
D O I
10.7759/cureus.47783
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
The optimal fluid management strategy for patients with sepsis remains a topic of debate. This meta -analysis aims to evaluate the impact of restrictive versus liberal fluid regimens on mortality, adverse events, and other clinical outcomes in patients with sepsis. We systematically reviewed 11 randomized controlled trials published between 2008 and 2023, comprising a total of 4,121 participants. The studies assessed 90 -day mortality, 30-day mortality, adverse events, hospital length of stay, ICU admission rate, mechanical ventilation, ventilator-free days, ICU-free days, and vasopressor-free days. Quality assessments indicated minimal bias across the studies. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in 90-day mortality between restrictive and liberal fluid regimens (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.70; P=0.30). Similar results were observed for 30-day mortality (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.80; P=0.50). Adverse events were comparable between the two groups (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.19; P=0.28). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in hospital length of stay (OR, 0.47; 95% CI,-0.85 to 1.80; P=0.48) or ICU admission rate (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.77; P=0.75) between the restrictive and liberal fluid regimens. Regarding mechanical ventilation and ventilator-free days, no significant distinctions were observed (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.17; P=0.48; OR, 0.99; 95% CI,-0.17 to 2.15; P=0.09, respectively). ICU-free days and vasopressor-free days also showed no significant differences between the two groups (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, -0.28 to 2.21; P=0.13; OR,-0.38; 95% CI,-1.14 to 0.37; P=0.32, respectively). This comprehensive meta -analysis of clinical trials suggests that restrictive and liberal fluid management strategies have comparable outcomes in patients with sepsis, including mortality, adverse events, and various clinical parameters. However, most studies favored restrictive fluid regimen over liberal approach regarding the number of vasopressor-free days, need for mechanical ventilation, adverse events, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality in sepsis patients.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Liberal versus restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy in sepsis or septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
    Hirano, Yohei
    Miyoshi, Yukari
    Kondo, Yutaka
    Okamoto, Ken
    Tanaka, Hiroshi
    CRITICAL CARE, 2019, 23 (1)
  • [2] Liberal versus restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy in sepsis or septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
    Yohei Hirano
    Yukari Miyoshi
    Yutaka Kondo
    Ken Okamoto
    Hiroshi Tanaka
    Critical Care, 23
  • [3] Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing conservative versus liberal intravenous fluid administration in patients with sepsis or septic shock at risk of fluid overload
    Bharwani, Aadil
    Perez, Maria Lucia
    Englesakis, Marina
    Meyhoff, Tine Sylvest
    Perner, Anders
    Sivapalan, Praleene
    Wilcox, Mary Elizabeth
    BMJ OPEN, 2023, 13 (05):
  • [4] Restrictive Versus Liberal Fluid Regimens in Patients Undergoing Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Mikaela L. Garland
    Hamish S. Mace
    Andrew D. MacCormick
    Stuart A. McCluskey
    Nicholas J. Lightfoot
    Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 2019, 23 : 1250 - 1265
  • [5] Restrictive Versus Liberal Fluid Regimens in Patients Undergoing Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Garland, Mikaela L.
    Mace, Hamish S.
    MacCormick, Andrew D.
    McCluskey, Stuart A.
    Lightfoot, Nicholas J.
    JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY, 2019, 23 (06) : 1250 - 1265
  • [6] Thrombopoietin levels in sepsis and septic shock - a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Liu, Chang
    Goerlich, Dennis
    Lowell, Clifford A.
    Italiano, Joseph E.
    Rossaint, Jan
    Bender, Markus
    Zarbock, Alexander
    Margraf, Andreas
    CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE, 2024, 62 (05) : 999 - 1010
  • [7] Corticosteroids for severe sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Annane, D
    Bellissant, E
    Bollaert, PE
    Briegel, J
    Keh, D
    Kupfer, Y
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2004, 329 (7464): : 480 - 484
  • [8] Methylene blue in sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Ballarin, Raquel Simoes
    Lazzarin, Taline
    Zornoff, Leonardo
    Azevedo, Paula Schmidt
    Pereira, Filipe Welson Leal
    Tanni, Suzana Erico
    Minicucci, Marcos Ferreira
    FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE, 2024, 11
  • [9] Conservative versus liberal fluid resuscitation for septic patients at risk for fluid overload: A systematic review with meta-analysis
    Bharwani, Aadil
    Dionne, Joanna C.
    Perez, Maria L.
    Englesakis, Marina
    Meyhoff, Tine Sylvest
    Sivapalan, Praleene
    Zampieri, Fernando G.
    Wilcox, M. Elizabeth
    JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE, 2025, 87
  • [10] Effect of restrictive fluid resuscitation on severe acute kidney injury in septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Cai, Xin-Er
    Ling, Wan-Ting
    Cai, Xiao-Tian
    Yan, Ming-Kun
    Zhang, Yan-Jie
    Xu, Jing-Yuan
    BMJ OPEN, 2025, 15 (02):