Effect of restrictive fluid resuscitation on severe acute kidney injury in septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Xin-Er Cai, Wan-Ting Ling, Xiao-Tian Cai, Ming-Kun Yan, Yan-Jie Zhang, Jing-Yuan Xu
{"title":"Effect of restrictive fluid resuscitation on severe acute kidney injury in septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Xin-Er Cai, Wan-Ting Ling, Xiao-Tian Cai, Ming-Kun Yan, Yan-Jie Zhang, Jing-Yuan Xu","doi":"10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086367","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Sepsis-associated hypotension or shock is a critical stage of sepsis, and a current clinical emergency that has high mortality and multiple complications. A new restrictive fluid resuscitation therapy has been applied, and its influence on patients' renal function remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the influence of restrictive fluid resuscitation on incidence of severe acute kidney injury (AKI) in adult patients with sepsis hypotension and shock compared with usual care.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched through 1 November 2024.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials that compared restrictive fluid resuscitation with liberal fluid therapy on patients with sepsis-associated hypotension and shock, to find out their effect on the incidence of severe AKI. Severe AKI was defined as the AKI network score 2-3 or Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes stages 2 and 3.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>Two independent reviewers used standardised methods to search, screen and code included trials. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Systematic Review Handbook for randomised clinical trials. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects models. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses, trial sequential analysis (TSA), Egger's test and the trim-and-fill method were performed. Findings were summarised in GRADE evidence profiles and synthesised qualitatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine trials (3718 participants) were included in this research and the analysis was conducted in random effects model. There was a significant difference in the incidence of severe AKI (risk ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, p=0.006; I<sup>2</sup>=0%) and the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -41.14, 95% CI -68.80 to -13.48; p=0.004; I<sup>2</sup>=74%) between patients receiving restrictive fluid resuscitation and patients receiving liberal fluid resuscitation. TSA showed that the cumulative amount of participants met the required information size, the positive conclusion had been confirmed. The GRADE assessment results demonstrated moderate confidence in the incidence of severe AKI, as well as the results of all second outcomes except the Intensive Care Unit length of stay (ICU LOS), which received limited confidence. The result of incidence of worse AKI was rated as of high certainty.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>It is conclusive that fluid restriction strategy is superior to usual care when it comes to reducing the incidence of severe AKI in sepsis-associated hypotension and shock. Shorter duration of ventilation is concerned with fluid restriction as well, but the heterogeneity is substantial. GRADE assessments confirmed moderate and above certainty. Traditional fluid resuscitation therapy has the potential to be further explored for improvements to be more precise and appropriate for a better prognosis.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42023449239.</p>","PeriodicalId":9158,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open","volume":"15 2","pages":"e086367"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11831265/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086367","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Sepsis-associated hypotension or shock is a critical stage of sepsis, and a current clinical emergency that has high mortality and multiple complications. A new restrictive fluid resuscitation therapy has been applied, and its influence on patients' renal function remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the influence of restrictive fluid resuscitation on incidence of severe acute kidney injury (AKI) in adult patients with sepsis hypotension and shock compared with usual care.

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Data sources: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched through 1 November 2024.

Eligibility criteria: We included randomised controlled trials that compared restrictive fluid resuscitation with liberal fluid therapy on patients with sepsis-associated hypotension and shock, to find out their effect on the incidence of severe AKI. Severe AKI was defined as the AKI network score 2-3 or Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes stages 2 and 3.

Data extraction and synthesis: Two independent reviewers used standardised methods to search, screen and code included trials. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Systematic Review Handbook for randomised clinical trials. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects models. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses, trial sequential analysis (TSA), Egger's test and the trim-and-fill method were performed. Findings were summarised in GRADE evidence profiles and synthesised qualitatively.

Results: Nine trials (3718 participants) were included in this research and the analysis was conducted in random effects model. There was a significant difference in the incidence of severe AKI (risk ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, p=0.006; I2=0%) and the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -41.14, 95% CI -68.80 to -13.48; p=0.004; I2=74%) between patients receiving restrictive fluid resuscitation and patients receiving liberal fluid resuscitation. TSA showed that the cumulative amount of participants met the required information size, the positive conclusion had been confirmed. The GRADE assessment results demonstrated moderate confidence in the incidence of severe AKI, as well as the results of all second outcomes except the Intensive Care Unit length of stay (ICU LOS), which received limited confidence. The result of incidence of worse AKI was rated as of high certainty.

Conclusions: It is conclusive that fluid restriction strategy is superior to usual care when it comes to reducing the incidence of severe AKI in sepsis-associated hypotension and shock. Shorter duration of ventilation is concerned with fluid restriction as well, but the heterogeneity is substantial. GRADE assessments confirmed moderate and above certainty. Traditional fluid resuscitation therapy has the potential to be further explored for improvements to be more precise and appropriate for a better prognosis.

Prospero registration number: CRD42023449239.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open
BMJ Open MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
4510
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open is an online, open access journal, dedicated to publishing medical research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas. The journal publishes all research study types, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Publishing procedures are built around fully open peer review and continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信