Why physiology will continue to guide the choice between balanced crystalloids and normal saline: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Balanced crystalloids
Emergency department
Intensive care unit
Intravenous fluid administration
Meta-analysis
Normal saline
Physiology
Required information size
Trial sequential analysis
Journal
Critical care (London, England)
ISSN: 1466-609X
Titre abrégé: Crit Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9801902
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 11 2019
21 11 2019
Historique:
received:
15
07
2019
accepted:
22
10
2019
entrez:
23
11
2019
pubmed:
23
11
2019
medline:
11
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Crystalloids are the most frequently prescribed drugs in intensive care medicine and emergency medicine. Thus, even small differences in outcome may have major implications, and therefore, the choice between balanced crystalloids versus normal saline continues to be debated. We examined to what extent the currently accrued information size from completed and ongoing trials on the subject allow intensivists and emergency physicians to choose the right fluid for their patients. Systematic review and meta-analysis with random effects inverse variance model. Published randomized controlled trials enrolling adult patients to compare balanced crystalloids versus normal saline in the setting of intensive care medicine or emergency medicine were included. The main outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up, and secondary outcomes were moderate to severe acute kidney injury (AKI) and initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT). Trial sequential analyses (TSA) were performed, and risk of bias and overall quality of evidence were assessed. Additionally, previously published meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses and ongoing large trials were analysed for included studies, required information size calculations and the assumptions underlying those calculations. Nine studies (n = 32,777) were included. Of those, eight had data available on mortality, seven on AKI and six on RRT. Meta-analysis showed no significant differences between balanced crystalloids versus normal saline for mortality (P = 0.33), the incidence of moderate to severe AKI (P = 0.37) or initiation of RRT (P = 0.29). Quality of evidence was low to very low. Analysis of previous meta-analyses and ongoing trials showed large differences in calculated required versus accrued information sizes and assumptions underlying those. TSA revealed the need for extremely large trials based on our realistic and clinically relevant assumptions on relative risk reduction and baseline mortality. Our meta-analysis could not find significant differences between balanced crystalloids and normal saline on mortality at the longest follow-up, moderate to severe AKI or new RRT. Currently accrued information size is smaller, and the required information size is larger than previously anticipated. Therefore, completed and ongoing trials on the topic may fail to provide adequate guidance for choosing the right crystalloid. Thus, physiology will continue to play an important role for individualizing this choice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Crystalloids are the most frequently prescribed drugs in intensive care medicine and emergency medicine. Thus, even small differences in outcome may have major implications, and therefore, the choice between balanced crystalloids versus normal saline continues to be debated. We examined to what extent the currently accrued information size from completed and ongoing trials on the subject allow intensivists and emergency physicians to choose the right fluid for their patients.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis with random effects inverse variance model. Published randomized controlled trials enrolling adult patients to compare balanced crystalloids versus normal saline in the setting of intensive care medicine or emergency medicine were included. The main outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up, and secondary outcomes were moderate to severe acute kidney injury (AKI) and initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT). Trial sequential analyses (TSA) were performed, and risk of bias and overall quality of evidence were assessed. Additionally, previously published meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses and ongoing large trials were analysed for included studies, required information size calculations and the assumptions underlying those calculations.
RESULTS
Nine studies (n = 32,777) were included. Of those, eight had data available on mortality, seven on AKI and six on RRT. Meta-analysis showed no significant differences between balanced crystalloids versus normal saline for mortality (P = 0.33), the incidence of moderate to severe AKI (P = 0.37) or initiation of RRT (P = 0.29). Quality of evidence was low to very low. Analysis of previous meta-analyses and ongoing trials showed large differences in calculated required versus accrued information sizes and assumptions underlying those. TSA revealed the need for extremely large trials based on our realistic and clinically relevant assumptions on relative risk reduction and baseline mortality.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis could not find significant differences between balanced crystalloids and normal saline on mortality at the longest follow-up, moderate to severe AKI or new RRT. Currently accrued information size is smaller, and the required information size is larger than previously anticipated. Therefore, completed and ongoing trials on the topic may fail to provide adequate guidance for choosing the right crystalloid. Thus, physiology will continue to play an important role for individualizing this choice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31752973
doi: 10.1186/s13054-019-2658-4
pii: 10.1186/s13054-019-2658-4
pmc: PMC6868741
doi:
Substances chimiques
Crystalloid Solutions
0
Saline Solution
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
366Références
Anesth Analg. 2018 Feb;126(2):513-521
pubmed: 29189271
Ann Intensive Care. 2017 Dec;7(1):66
pubmed: 28616838
Am J Emerg Med. 2019 Nov;37(11):2072-2078
pubmed: 30852043
Intensive Care Med Exp. 2018 Apr 13;6(1):10
pubmed: 29654387
Ann Fam Med. 2004 May-Jun;2(3):204-8
pubmed: 15209195
Pancreatology. 2018 Jul;18(5):507-512
pubmed: 29754857
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 May 15;197(10):1361
pubmed: 29253347
JAMA. 2015 Apr 28;313(16):1657-65
pubmed: 25919529
Ann Surg. 2014 Feb;259(2):255-62
pubmed: 23732264
Ren Fail. 2008;30(5):535-9
pubmed: 18569935
J Intensive Care. 2018 Aug 17;6:51
pubmed: 30140441
N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 1;378(9):819-828
pubmed: 29485926
Crit Care Resusc. 2016 Sep;18(3):205-12
pubmed: 27604335
Anesth Analg. 2005 May;100(5):1518-1524
pubmed: 15845718
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019 Apr 15;199(8):952-960
pubmed: 30407838
Br J Surg. 2015 Jan;102(1):24-36
pubmed: 25357011
QJM. 2012 Apr;105(4):337-43
pubmed: 22109683
Intensive Care Med. 2006 Aug;32(8):1238-42
pubmed: 16775719
Ann Intensive Care. 2019 Jan 31;9(1):23
pubmed: 30706172
Crit Care. 2016 Mar 15;20:59
pubmed: 26976277
Clin Trials. 2015 Feb;12(1):34-44
pubmed: 25475880
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2018 Jun 07;162:
pubmed: 30040329
Nephron Clin Pract. 2012;120(4):c179-84
pubmed: 22890468
N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 26;369(13):1243-51
pubmed: 24066745
Am J Kidney Dis. 1987 Jan;9(1):3-11
pubmed: 3028133
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
JAMA. 2015 Oct 27;314(16):1701-10
pubmed: 26444692
Ann Transl Med. 2017 Aug;5(16):323
pubmed: 28861420
N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 1;378(9):829-839
pubmed: 29485925
Ann Intensive Care. 2019 Feb 13;9(1):30
pubmed: 30758680
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Mar 6;17(1):39
pubmed: 28264661
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 May 15;195(10):1362-1372
pubmed: 27749094