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. Response

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. International Severe Asthma Registry: Mission Statement

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

  3. "High-Risk" Clinical and Inflammatory Clusters in COPD of Chinese Descent

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. The PANSAID Randomized Clinical Trial: A pre-planned 1-year follow-up regarding harm

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Response

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. The handling oxygenation targets in the intensive care unit (HOT-ICU) trial: Detailed statistical analysis plan

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-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