Maria Sklodowska-Curie Bialystok Oncology Center, Bialystok, Poland.
Department of Emergency Medical Ser vice, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.
Cardiol J. 2022;29(6):966-977. doi: 10.5603/CJ.a2020.0134. Epub 2020 Nov 3.
Fluid resuscitation is a fundamental intervention in patients with hypovolemic shock resulting from trauma. Appropriate fluid resuscitation in trauma patients could reduce organ failure, until blood components are available, and hemorrhage is controlled. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effect of hypertonic saline/dextran or hypertonic saline for fluid resuscitation on patient outcomes restricted to adults with hypovolemic shock.
We conducted a search of electronic information sources, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library and bibliographic reference lists to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating outcomes of crystalloids versus colloids in patients with hypovolemic shock. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) of groups using fixed or random-effect models.
Fifteen studies including 3264 patients met our inclusion criteria. Survival to hospital discharge rate between research groups varied and amounted to 71.2% in hypertonic saline/dextran group vs. 68.4% for isotonic/normotonic fluid (normal saline) solutions (odds ratio [OR] = 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-1.45; I2 = 48%; p = 0.09). 28- to 30-days survival rate for hypertonic fluid solutions was 72.8% survivable, while in the case of isotonic fluid (normal saline) - 71.4% (OR = 1.13; 95% CI 0.75-1.70; I2 = 43%; p = 0.56).
This systematic review and meta-analysis, which included only evidence from RCTs hypertonic saline/dextran or hypertonic saline compared with isotonic fluid did not result in superior 28- to 30-day survival as well as in survival to hospital discharge. However, patients with hypotension who received resuscitation with hypertonic saline/dextran had less overall mortality as patients who received conventional fluid.
液体复苏是创伤导致低血容量性休克患者的基本干预措施。在血液成分可用且出血得到控制之前,对创伤患者进行适当的液体复苏可以减少器官衰竭。我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,评估了高渗盐水/右旋糖酐或高渗盐水用于液体复苏对仅限低血容量性休克成人患者的患者结局的影响。
我们对电子信息源(包括 PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、Cochrane 图书馆和参考文献列表)进行了搜索,以确定所有比较晶体液与胶体液在低血容量性休克患者中的结局的随机对照试验(RCT)。我们使用固定或随机效应模型计算组间风险比(RR)或均数差(MD)。
纳入了 15 项研究,共 3264 例患者。研究组之间的出院存活率不同,高渗盐水/右旋糖酐组为 71.2%,等渗/正常压液(生理盐水)组为 68.4%(比值比[OR] = 1.19;95%置信区间[CI] 0.97-1.45;I2 = 48%;p = 0.09)。高渗液组 28-30 天存活率为 72.8%,而等渗液(生理盐水)组为 71.4%(OR = 1.13;95%CI 0.75-1.70;I2 = 43%;p = 0.56)。
本系统评价和荟萃分析仅纳入了 RCT 证据,高渗盐水/右旋糖酐或高渗盐水与等渗液相比,并未提高 28-30 天的生存率和出院生存率。然而,接受高渗盐水/右旋糖酐复苏的低血压患者的总死亡率低于接受常规液体复苏的患者。