The efficacy of prehospital IV fluid management in severely injured adult trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE

The most widely used prehospital strategy for the management of hemorrhagic shock or trauma accompanied by hypotension is fluid resuscitation. Though current guidelines suggest early and aggressive fluid resuscitation, contemporary literature suggests a more restrictive approach. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of low/ no IV fluids in comparison to standard resuscitation in reducing mortality for trauma patients in the prehospital setting.

METHODS

Population-adults with blunt or penetrating trauma in the prehospital setting with severe injury (defined as SBP < 90 mm Hg and/or a shock index > (1). Intervention-low-dose/no IV fluids. Comparison-standard resuscitation. Outcome-mortality. A librarian-assisted search of five databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL, Cochrane trials) was completed in June 2021 (updated in November 2022). ROBINS-1 and ROB-2 tools were used to assess risk of bias in observational and randomized studies, respectively. An inverse variance method and random-effects model of statistical analysis were utilized, with data reported as risk ratios with related 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity of studies was assessed through analysis of the I RESULTS: Seven studies (six observational and one randomized trial) were included, with three thousand and fifty study participants included for analysis. Four studies compared high- to low-dose fluids, and three compared fluids to no fluids. We found no difference in mortality when comparing standard resuscitation to restricted resuscitation (RR 0.99, 95% CI [0.80-1.22], I = 54%).

CONCLUSION

Weak, primarily observational evidence suggests that standard fluid resuscitation has no significant mortality benefit over restricting/withholding IV fluids in severe/hypotensive trauma. This review adds evidence to questioning the requirement for IV fluids in trauma given the lack of mortality benefit, in addition to demonstrating the need for more randomized studies in this area.