Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Service de Medecine Intensive Réanimation, Créteil, France.
Institut Mondor de Recherche Biomédicale, Groupe de recherche clinique CARMAS, Faculté de Santé de Créteil, Université Paris est Créteil, Créteil, France.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2024 Mar 1;209(5):517-528. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202309-1617OC.
Sepsis management relies on fluid resuscitation avoiding fluid overload and its related organ congestion. To explore the influence of country income group on risk-benefit balance of fluid management strategies in sepsis. We searched e-databases for all randomized controlled trials on fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis or septic shock up to January 2023, excluding studies on hypertonic fluids, colloids, and depletion-based interventions. The effect of fluid strategies (higher versus lower volumes) on mortality was analyzed per income group (i.e., low- and middle-income countries [LMICs] or high-income countries [HICs]). Twenty-nine studies (11,798 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. There was a numerically higher mortality in studies of LMICs as compared with those of HICs: median, 37% (interquartile range [IQR]: 26-41) versus 29% (IQR: 17-38; = 0.06). Income group significantly interacted with the effect of fluid volume on mortality: Higher fluid volume was associated with higher mortality in LMICs but not in HICs: odds ratio (OR), 1.47; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.14-1.90 versus 1.00 (95% CI: 0.87-1.16), = 0.01 for subgroup differences. Higher fluid volume was associated with increased need for mechanical ventilation in LMICs (OR, 1.24 [95% CI: 1.08-1.43]) but not in HICs (OR, 1.02 [95% CI: 0.80-1.29]). Self-reported access to mechanical ventilation also significantly influenced the effect of fluid volume on mortality, which increased with higher volumes only in settings with limited access to mechanical ventilation (OR: 1.45 [95% CI: 1.09-1.93] vs. 1.09 [95% CI: 0.93-1.28], = 0.02 for subgroup differences). In sepsis trials, the effect of fluid resuscitation approach differed by setting, with higher volume of fluid resuscitation associated with increased mortality in LMICs and in settings with restricted access to mechanical ventilation. The precise reason for these differences is unclear and may be attributable in part to resource constraints, participant variation between trials, or other unmeasured factors.
脓毒症的管理依赖于液体复苏,以避免液体超负荷及其相关的器官淤血。为了探讨国家收入组对脓毒症液体管理策略风险-获益平衡的影响。我们检索了截至 2023 年 1 月的所有关于脓毒症或脓毒性休克患者液体复苏的随机对照试验的电子数据库,不包括高渗液、胶体和基于消耗的干预措施的研究。根据收入组(即低收入和中等收入国家 [LMICs] 或高收入国家 [HICs])分析了液体策略(更高与更低的容量)对死亡率的影响。共有 29 项研究(11798 名患者)纳入荟萃分析。与 HIC 相比,来自 LMIC 的研究中死亡率更高:中位数为 37%(四分位距 [IQR]:26-41)与 29%(IQR:17-38; = 0.06)。收入组与液体量对死亡率的影响显著交互作用:在 LMIC 中,较高的液体量与较高的死亡率相关,但在 HIC 中则不然:比值比(OR)为 1.47;95%置信区间(95%CI)为 1.14-1.90 与 1.00(95%CI:0.87-1.16), = 0.01 为亚组差异。在 LMIC 中,较高的液体量与机械通气需求增加相关(OR,1.24 [95%CI:1.08-1.43]),而在 HIC 中则不然(OR,1.02 [95%CI:0.80-1.29])。自我报告的机械通气的获得也显著影响了液体量对死亡率的影响,仅在机械通气获得有限的情况下,随着液体量的增加,死亡率才会增加(OR:1.45 [95%CI:1.09-1.93] 与 1.09 [95%CI:0.93-1.28], = 0.02 为亚组差异)。在脓毒症试验中,液体复苏方法的效果因环境而异,在 LMIC 和机械通气受限的环境中,较高的液体复苏量与死亡率增加相关。这些差异的确切原因尚不清楚,部分原因可能是资源限制、试验参与者之间的差异或其他未测量的因素。