Zampieri Fernando G, Machado Flávia R, Biondi Rodrigo S, Freitas Flávio G R, Veiga Viviane C, Figueiredo Rodrigo C, Lovato Wilson J, Amêndola Cristina P, Serpa-Neto Ary, Paranhos Jorge L R, Guedes Marco A V, Lúcio Eraldo A, Oliveira-Júnior Lúcio C, Lisboa Thiago C, Lacerda Fábio H, Maia Israel S, Grion Cintia M C, Assunção Murillo S C, Manoel Airton L O, Silva-Junior João M, Duarte Péricles, Soares Rafael M, Miranda Tamiris A, de Lima Lucas M, Gurgel Rodrigo M, Paisani Denise M, Corrêa Thiago D, Azevedo Luciano C P, Kellum John A, Damiani Lucas P, Brandão da Silva Nilton, Cavalcanti Alexandre B
HCor Research Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
Brazilian Research in Intensive Care Network, São Paulo, Brazil.
JAMA. 2021 Aug 10;326(9):1-12. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.11684.
Intravenous fluids are used for almost all intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Clinical and laboratory studies have questioned whether specific fluid types result in improved outcomes, including mortality and acute kidney injury.
To determine the effect of a balanced solution vs saline solution (0.9% sodium chloride) on 90-day survival in critically ill patients.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Double-blind, factorial, randomized clinical trial conducted at 75 ICUs in Brazil. Patients who were admitted to the ICU with at least 1 risk factor for worse outcomes, who required at least 1 fluid expansion, and who were expected to remain in the ICU for more than 24 hours were randomized between May 29, 2017, and March 2, 2020; follow-up concluded on October 29, 2020. Patients were randomized to 2 different fluid types (a balanced solution vs saline solution reported in this article) and 2 different infusion rates (reported separately).
Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either a balanced solution (n = 5522) or 0.9% saline solution (n = 5530) for all intravenous fluids.
The primary outcome was 90-day survival.
Among 11 052 patients who were randomized, 10 520 (95.2%) were available for the analysis (mean age, 61.1 [SD, 17] years; 44.2% were women). There was no significant interaction between the 2 interventions (fluid type and infusion speed; P = .98). Planned surgical admissions represented 48.4% of all patients. Of all the patients, 60.6% had hypotension or vasopressor use and 44.3% required mechanical ventilation at enrollment. Patients in both groups received a median of 1.5 L of fluid during the first day after enrollment. By day 90, 1381 of 5230 patients (26.4%) assigned to a balanced solution died vs 1439 of 5290 patients (27.2%) assigned to saline solution (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.90-1.05]; P = .47). There were no unexpected treatment-related severe adverse events in either group.
Among critically ill patients requiring fluid challenges, use of a balanced solution compared with 0.9% saline solution did not significantly reduce 90-day mortality. The findings do not support the use of this balanced solution.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02875873.
几乎所有重症监护病房(ICU)患者都会使用静脉输液。临床和实验室研究对特定类型的液体是否能改善包括死亡率和急性肾损伤在内的预后提出了质疑。
确定平衡溶液与盐溶液(0.9%氯化钠)对危重症患者90天生存率的影响。
设计、地点和参与者:在巴西75个ICU进行的双盲、析因、随机临床试验。2017年5月29日至2020年3月2日期间,将入住ICU且至少有1个预后较差风险因素、至少需要1次液体扩容且预计在ICU停留超过24小时的患者随机分组;随访于2020年10月29日结束。患者被随机分为2种不同的液体类型(本文报告的平衡溶液与盐溶液)和2种不同的输注速率(单独报告)。
患者被1:1随机分配,所有静脉输液均接受平衡溶液(n = 5522)或0.9%盐溶液(n = 5530)。
主要结局为90天生存率。
在11052例随机分组的患者中,10520例(95.2%)可纳入分析(平均年龄61.1[标准差,17]岁;44.2%为女性)。两种干预措施(液体类型和输注速度)之间无显著交互作用(P = 0.98)。计划手术入院患者占所有患者的48.4%。所有患者中,60.6%有低血压或使用血管升压药,44.3%在入组时需要机械通气。两组患者在入组后第一天接受的液体中位数均为1.5L。到第90天,分配接受平衡溶液的5230例患者中有1381例(26.4%)死亡,而分配接受盐溶液的5290例患者中有1439例(27.2%)死亡(校正风险比,0.97[95%CI,0.90 - 1.05];P = 0.47)。两组均未出现意外的与治疗相关的严重不良事件。
在需要液体冲击的危重症患者中,与0.9%盐溶液相比,使用平衡溶液并未显著降低90天死亡率。这些发现不支持使用这种平衡溶液。
ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT02875873。