Division of Hepatogastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Keelung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Keelung, Taiwan.
College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Crit Care. 2023 Mar 22;27(1):122. doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04401-0.
Current practice guidelines for optimal infusion rates during early intravenous hydration in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) remain inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare treatment outcomes between aggressive and non-aggressive intravenous hydration in severe and non-severe AP.
This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on November 23, 2022, and hand-searched the reference lists of included RCTs, relevant review articles and clinical guidelines. We included RCTs that compared clinical outcomes from aggressive and non-aggressive intravenous hydration in AP. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model for participants with severe AP and non-severe AP. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and several secondary outcomes included fluid-related complications, clinical improvement and APACHE II scores within 48 h.
We included a total of 9 RCTs with 953 participants. The meta-analysis indicated that, compared to non-aggressive intravenous hydration, aggressive intravenous hydration significantly increased mortality risk in severe AP (pooled RR: 2.45, 95% CI: 1.37, 4.40), while the result in non-severe AP was inconclusive (pooled RR: 2.26, 95% CI: 0.54, 9.44). However, aggressive intravenous hydration significantly increased fluid-related complication risk in both severe (pooled RR: 2.22, 95% CI 1.36, 3.63) and non-severe AP (pooled RR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.53, 6.93). The meta-analysis indicated worse APACHE II scores (pooled mean difference: 3.31, 95% CI: 1.79, 4.84) in severe AP, and no increased likelihood of clinical improvement (pooled RR:1.20, 95% CI: 0.63, 2.29) in non-severe AP. Sensitivity analyses including only RCTs with goal-directed fluid therapy after initial fluid resuscitation therapy yielded consistent results.
Aggressive intravenous hydration increased the mortality risk in severe AP, and fluid-related complication risk in both severe and non-severe AP. More conservative intravenous fluid resuscitation protocols for AP are suggested.
目前急性胰腺炎(AP)患者早期静脉补液的最佳输注率的临床实践指南仍不一致。本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在比较重度和非重度 AP 患者中积极和非积极静脉补液的治疗结果。
本研究遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目指南。我们于 2022 年 11 月 23 日系统地检索了 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆中的随机对照试验(RCT),并对纳入的 RCT 的参考文献列表、相关综述文章和临床指南进行了手工检索。我们纳入了比较 AP 中积极和非积极静脉补液的临床结局的 RCT。对重度 AP 和非重度 AP 患者采用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析。我们的主要结局是全因死亡率,几个次要结局包括液体相关并发症、48 小时内临床改善和 APACHE II 评分。
我们共纳入了 9 项 RCT,共 953 名参与者。荟萃分析表明,与非积极静脉补液相比,积极静脉补液显著增加了重度 AP 的死亡率风险(合并 RR:2.45,95%CI:1.37,4.40),而在非重度 AP 中的结果尚无定论(合并 RR:2.26,95%CI:0.54,9.44)。然而,积极静脉补液显著增加了重度(合并 RR:2.22,95%CI 1.36,3.63)和非重度 AP(合并 RR:3.25,95%CI:1.53,6.93)的液体相关并发症风险。荟萃分析表明,重度 AP 的 APACHE II 评分(合并均数差:3.31,95%CI:1.79,4.84)更差,而非重度 AP 中临床改善的可能性无增加(合并 RR:1.20,95%CI:0.63,2.29)。包括初始液体复苏治疗后目标导向液体治疗的 RCT 仅进行敏感性分析,结果一致。
积极的静脉补液增加了重度 AP 的死亡率风险,以及重度和非重度 AP 的液体相关并发症风险。建议对 AP 采用更保守的静脉补液复苏方案。