Jonathan A Silversides1,2, Emmet Major3, Andrew J Ferguson4, Emma E Mann3, Daniel F McAuley5,6, John C Marshall7,8, Bronagh Blackwood5, Eddy Fan7. 1. Centre for Experimental Medicine, Wellcome-Wolfson Institute, Queen's University of Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7BL, UK. jsilversides01@qub.ac.uk. 2. Department of Critical Care Services, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast City Hospital, Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7AB, UK. jsilversides01@qub.ac.uk. 3. Department of Critical Care Services, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast City Hospital, Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7AB, UK. 4. Department of Intensive Care, Southern Health and Social Care Trust, Craigavon Area Hospital, 68 Lurgan Road, Portadown, BT63 5QQ, UK. 5. Centre for Experimental Medicine, Wellcome-Wolfson Institute, Queen's University of Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7BL, UK. 6. Regional Intensive Care Unit, Department of Critical Care Services, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6BA, UK. 7. Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, 585 University Avenue, PMB 11-123, Toronto, ON, M5G 2N2, Canada. 8. Department of Critical Care Medicine, St Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Bond 4-014, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether a conservative approach to fluid administration or deresuscitation (active removal of fluid using diuretics or renal replacement therapy) is beneficial following haemodynamic stabilisation of critically ill patients. PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of conservative or deresuscitative fluid strategies in adults and children with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis or systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in the post-resuscitation phase of critical illness. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials from 1980 to June 2016, and manually reviewed relevant conference proceedings from 2009 to the present. Two reviewers independently assessed search results for inclusion and undertook data extraction and quality appraisal. We included randomised trials comparing fluid regimens with differing fluid balances between groups, and observational studies investigating the relationship between fluid balance and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Marked clinical heterogeneity was evident. In a meta-analysis of 11 randomised trials (2051 patients) using a random-effects model, we found no significant difference in mortality with conservative or deresuscitative strategies compared with a liberal strategy or usual care [pooled risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.82-1.02, I 2 = 0 %]. A conservative or deresuscitative strategy resulted in increased ventilator-free days (mean difference 1.82 days, 95 % CI 0.53-3.10, I 2 = 9 %) and reduced length of ICU stay (mean difference -1.88 days, 95 % CI -0.12 to -3.64, I 2 = 75 %) compared with a liberal strategy or standard care. CONCLUSIONS: In adults and children with ARDS, sepsis or SIRS, a conservative or deresuscitative fluid strategy results in an increased number of ventilator-free days and a decreased length of ICU stay compared with a liberal strategy or standard care. The effect on mortality remains uncertain. Large randomised trials are needed to determine optimal fluid strategies in critical illness.
BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether a conservative approach to fluid administration or deresuscitation (active removal of fluid using diuretics or renal replacement therapy) is beneficial following haemodynamic stabilisation of critically illpatients. PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of conservative or deresuscitative fluid strategies in adults and children with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis or systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in the post-resuscitation phase of critical illness. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials from 1980 to June 2016, and manually reviewed relevant conference proceedings from 2009 to the present. Two reviewers independently assessed search results for inclusion and undertook data extraction and quality appraisal. We included randomised trials comparing fluid regimens with differing fluid balances between groups, and observational studies investigating the relationship between fluid balance and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Marked clinical heterogeneity was evident. In a meta-analysis of 11 randomised trials (2051 patients) using a random-effects model, we found no significant difference in mortality with conservative or deresuscitative strategies compared with a liberal strategy or usual care [pooled risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.82-1.02, I 2 = 0 %]. A conservative or deresuscitative strategy resulted in increased ventilator-free days (mean difference 1.82 days, 95 % CI 0.53-3.10, I 2 = 9 %) and reduced length of ICU stay (mean difference -1.88 days, 95 % CI -0.12 to -3.64, I 2 = 75 %) compared with a liberal strategy or standard care. CONCLUSIONS: In adults and children with ARDS, sepsis or SIRS, a conservative or deresuscitative fluid strategy results in an increased number of ventilator-free days and a decreased length of ICU stay compared with a liberal strategy or standard care. The effect on mortality remains uncertain. Large randomised trials are needed to determine optimal fluid strategies in critical illness.
Authors: G R Bernard; A Artigas; K L Brigham; J Carlet; K Falke; L Hudson; M Lamy; J R Legall; A Morris; R Spragg Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1994-03 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Fernando Saes Vilaça de Oliveira; Flavio Geraldo Resende Freitas; Elaine Maria Ferreira; Isac de Castro; Antonio Toneti Bafi; Luciano Cesar Pontes de Azevedo; Flavia Ribeiro Machado Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2014-09-06 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Stacey L Valentine; Anil Sapru; Renee A Higgerson; Phillip C Spinella; Heidi R Flori; Dionne A Graham; Molly Brett; Maureen Convery; LeeAnn M Christie; Laurie Karamessinis; Adrienne G Randolph Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Colin K Grissom; Eliotte L Hirshberg; Justin B Dickerson; Samuel M Brown; Michael J Lanspa; Kathleen D Liu; David Schoenfeld; Mark Tidswell; R Duncan Hite; Peter Rock; Russell R Miller; Alan H Morris Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Greg S Martin; Robert J Mangialardi; Arthur P Wheeler; William D Dupont; John A Morris; Gordon R Bernard Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Bronagh Blackwood; Mike Clarke; Danny F McAuley; Peter J McGuigan; John C Marshall; Louise Rose Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2014-04-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Didier Payen; Anne Cornélie de Pont; Yasser Sakr; Claudia Spies; Konrad Reinhart; Jean Louis Vincent Journal: Crit Care Date: 2008-06-04 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Scott T Micek; Colleen McEvoy; Matthew McKenzie; Nicholas Hampton; Joshua A Doherty; Marin H Kollef Journal: Crit Care Date: 2013-10-20 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Johan Mårtensson; Shailesh Bihari; Jonathan Bannard-Smith; Neil J Glassford; Patryck Lloyd-Donald; Luca Cioccari; Nora Luethi; Aiko Tanaka; Marco Crisman; Nicolas Rey de Castro; Marcus Ottochian; Agnes Huang; Maria Cronhjort; Andrew D Bersten; Shivesh Prakash; Michael Bailey; Glenn M Eastwood; Rinaldo Bellomo Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-10-21 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Wesley H Self; Matthew W Semler; Rinaldo Bellomo; Samuel M Brown; Bennett P deBoisblanc; Matthew C Exline; Adit A Ginde; Colin K Grissom; David R Janz; Alan E Jones; Kathleen D Liu; Stephen P J Macdonald; Chadwick D Miller; Pauline K Park; Lora A Reineck; Todd W Rice; Jay S Steingrub; Daniel Talmor; Donald M Yealy; Ivor S Douglas; Nathan I Shapiro Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 5.721