Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Lower versus higher fluid volumes during initial management of sepsis - a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Whole Genome Sequencing Identifies CRISPLD2 as a Lung Function Gene in Children with asthma

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. An Integrative Transcriptomic and Metabolomic Study of Lung Function in Children With Asthma

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Bariatric Surgery in Obese Patients With Psoriasis and COPD: Killing Three Birds With One Stone?

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. Risk Factors for Chronic Cough Among 14 669 Individuals from the General Population

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  5. The Magic Bullet in Sepsis or the Inflation of Chance Findings?

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. APACHE II score validation in emergency abdominal surgery. A post hoc analysis of the InCare trial

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Effects of magnesium, phosphate and zinc supplementation in ICU patients-Protocol for a systematic review

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

PURPOSE: Intravenous fluids are recommended during the initial management of sepsis, but the quality of evidence is low, and clinical equipoise exists. We aimed to assess patient-important benefits and harms of lower versus higher fluid volumes in adult patients with sepsis.

METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomised clinical trials of intravenous fluid volume separation in adult patients with sepsis. We adhered to our published protocol, the Cochrane Handbook, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation statements. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and quality-of-life.

RESULTS: We included 9 trials (n=637); all were published after 2015 and had overall high risk of bias. We found no statistically significant difference between lower versus higher fluid volumes on all-cause mortality (relative risk 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.10, I2=0%; TSA adjusted Cl 0.34 to 2.22), or serious adverse events (relative risk 0.91 95% CI 0.78 to 1.05, I2=0%; TSA adjusted CI 0.68 to 1.21). No trials reported on quality-of-life. We did not find differences in the secondary or exploratory outcomes. The quality of evidence was very low across all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, we found very low quantity and quality of evidence supporting the decision on the volumes of IV fluid therapy in adults with sepsis.

Original languageEnglish
Article numberpii: S0012-3692
JournalChest
Volume20
Pages (from-to)30123-9
ISSN0012-3692
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 23 Jan 2020

ID: 59134941