Marcello Di Martino1, Stijn Van Laarhoven2, Benedetto Ielpo3, Jose M Ramia4, Alba Manuel-Vázquez5, Aleix Martínez-Pérez6, Mihai Pavel7, Pablo Beltran Miranda8, Rafael Orti-Rodríguez9, Sofía de la Serna10, Guillermo J Ortega Rabbione11, Ancor Sanz-Garcia11, Elena Martín-Pérez12. 1. HPB Unit, Department of General and Digestive Surgery, Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Princesa (IIS-IP), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM), Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: marcellodima@gmail.com. 2. Department of HPB Surgery University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK. 3. HPB Unit, University Mar Hospital, Parc Salut, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Faculty of Health Sciences, Valencian International University (VIU), 46002, Valencia, Spain; Department of Surgery, Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, ISABIALAlicante (Spain). 5. Department of General and Digestive Surgery, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Madrid, Spain. 6. Faculty of Health Sciences, Valencian International University (VIU), 46002, Valencia, Spain. 7. HPB Unit, Department of General Surgery, Hospital Universitari de Tarragona Joan XXIII, Tarragona, Spain, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Departament de Medicina i Cirugia, Reus, Spain, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Departament de Medicina i Cirugia, Reus, Spain. 8. Unidad de Cirugía Hepato-Bilio-Pancreática, Hospital Universitario Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain. 9. Department of General and Digestive Surgery, Hospital Universitario Nuestra Señora de Candelaria, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain. 10. HPB Surgery Unit, Department of General and Digestive Surgery, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Carlos, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain. 11. Data Analysis Unit, Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Princesa (IIS-IP), Madrid, Spain. 12. HPB Unit, Department of General and Digestive Surgery, Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Princesa (IIS-IP), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM), Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adequate fluid resuscitation is paramount in the management of acute pancreatitis (AP). The aim of this study is to assess benefits and harms of fluid therapy protocols in patients with AP. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index and clinical trial registries were searched for randomised clinical trials published before May 2020, assessing types of fluids, routes and rates of administration. RESULTS: A total 15 trials (1073 participants) were included. Age ranged from 38 to 73 years; follow-up period ranged from 0.5 to 6 months. Ringer lactate (RL) showed a reduced number of severe adverse events (SAE) when compared to normal saline (NS) (OR 0.48; 95%CI 0.29-0.81, p = 0.006); additionally, NS showed reduced SAE (RR 0.38; 95%IC 0.27-0.54, p < 0.001) and organ failure (RR 0.30; 95%CI 0.21-0.44, p < 0.001) in comparison with hydroxyethyl starch (HES). High fluid rate fluid infusion showed increased mortality (OR 2.88; 95%CI 1.41-5.88, p = 0.004), increased number of SAE (RR 1.42; 95%CI 1.04-1.93, p = 0.030) and higher incidence of sepsis (RR 2.80; 95%CI 1.51-5.19, p = 0.001) compared to moderate fluid rate infusion. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AP, RL should be preferred over NS and HES should not be recommended. Based on low-certainty evidence, moderate-rate fluid infusion should be preferred over high-rate infusion.
BACKGROUND: Adequate fluid resuscitation is paramount in the management of acute pancreatitis (AP). The aim of this study is to assess benefits and harms of fluid therapy protocols in patients with AP. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index and clinical trial registries were searched for randomised clinical trials published before May 2020, assessing types of fluids, routes and rates of administration. RESULTS: A total 15 trials (1073 participants) were included. Age ranged from 38 to 73 years; follow-up period ranged from 0.5 to 6 months. Ringer lactate (RL) showed a reduced number of severe adverse events (SAE) when compared to normal saline (NS) (OR 0.48; 95%CI 0.29-0.81, p = 0.006); additionally, NS showed reduced SAE (RR 0.38; 95%IC 0.27-0.54, p < 0.001) and organ failure (RR 0.30; 95%CI 0.21-0.44, p < 0.001) in comparison with hydroxyethyl starch (HES). High fluid rate fluid infusion showed increased mortality (OR 2.88; 95%CI 1.41-5.88, p = 0.004), increased number of SAE (RR 1.42; 95%CI 1.04-1.93, p = 0.030) and higher incidence of sepsis (RR 2.80; 95%CI 1.51-5.19, p = 0.001) compared to moderate fluid rate infusion. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AP, RL should be preferred over NS and HES should not be recommended. Based on low-certainty evidence, moderate-rate fluid infusion should be preferred over high-rate infusion.
Authors: Andrea Crosignani; Stefano Spina; Francesco Marrazzo; Stefania Cimbanassi; Manu L N G Malbrain; Niels Van Regenemortel; Roberto Fumagalli; Thomas Langer Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2022-10-17 Impact factor: 10.318