Personalized fluid resuscitation may reduce mortality in septic shock as compared with fixed-volume approach - a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 2.9 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Gábor Nagy, Júlia Hollósi, Caner Turan, Dávid Laczkó, Zoltán Sipos, Péter Hegyi, László Zubek, Zsolt Molnár
{"title":"Personalized fluid resuscitation may reduce mortality in septic shock as compared with fixed-volume approach - a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Gábor Nagy, Júlia Hollósi, Caner Turan, Dávid Laczkó, Zoltán Sipos, Péter Hegyi, László Zubek, Zsolt Molnár","doi":"10.1186/s40635-026-00967-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Immediate fluid resuscitation plays a pivotal role in sepsis management. It remains unclear whether a fixed-volume or personalized strategy is more beneficial. Our aim was to compare effectiveness and safety of personalized vs. fixed-volume resuscitation in septic patients in a systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL on October 30, 2024. The pre-study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024601970). Randomized controlled trials investigated septic patients who received fluid therapy in a personalized way during their initial resuscitation and reported the outcomes of our interest. The meta-analysis was performed using META packages in R with a random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The selection yielded 10 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 1,011 patients. Data from 8 RCTs (n = 901) revealed significantly reduced odds of 30-day mortality, (OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.42-0.93); however, there was no significant difference in the requirement for renal replacement therapy (OR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.23-2.55), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD: 0.27; 95% CI: -3.09-3.63), vasopressor therapy (MD: -3.70; 95% CI: -32.88-25.48) and length of hospital (MD: -0.87; 95% CI: -4.97-3.25) or intensive care unit stay (MD: 0.44; 95% CI: -1.90-2.77).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Personalized fluid resuscitation, compared with fixed-volume resuscitation, indicated reduced 30-day mortality in septic patients. However, the observed mortality benefit should be interpreted cautiously given the relatively small overall sample size, predominance of small single-center studies, and moderate-to-low certainty of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":13750,"journal":{"name":"Intensive Care Medicine Experimental","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13620029/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intensive Care Medicine Experimental","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40635-026-00967-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Immediate fluid resuscitation plays a pivotal role in sepsis management. It remains unclear whether a fixed-volume or personalized strategy is more beneficial. Our aim was to compare effectiveness and safety of personalized vs. fixed-volume resuscitation in septic patients in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL on October 30, 2024. The pre-study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024601970). Randomized controlled trials investigated septic patients who received fluid therapy in a personalized way during their initial resuscitation and reported the outcomes of our interest. The meta-analysis was performed using META packages in R with a random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB2.

Results: The selection yielded 10 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 1,011 patients. Data from 8 RCTs (n = 901) revealed significantly reduced odds of 30-day mortality, (OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.42-0.93); however, there was no significant difference in the requirement for renal replacement therapy (OR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.23-2.55), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD: 0.27; 95% CI: -3.09-3.63), vasopressor therapy (MD: -3.70; 95% CI: -32.88-25.48) and length of hospital (MD: -0.87; 95% CI: -4.97-3.25) or intensive care unit stay (MD: 0.44; 95% CI: -1.90-2.77).

Conclusion: Personalized fluid resuscitation, compared with fixed-volume resuscitation, indicated reduced 30-day mortality in septic patients. However, the observed mortality benefit should be interpreted cautiously given the relatively small overall sample size, predominance of small single-center studies, and moderate-to-low certainty of evidence.

与固定容量方法相比,个体化液体复苏可降低感染性休克的死亡率——一项随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
简介:即时液体复苏在脓毒症的治疗中起着关键作用。目前还不清楚固定交易量策略和个性化策略哪个更有利。我们的目的是在系统回顾和荟萃分析中比较败血症患者个性化复苏与固定容量复苏的有效性和安全性。方法:于2024年10月30日在PubMed、EMBASE和CENTRAL进行系统文献检索。研究前方案已在PROSPERO注册(ID: CRD42024601970)。随机对照试验调查了在最初复苏期间接受个性化液体治疗的脓毒症患者,并报告了我们感兴趣的结果。META分析采用R中的META软件包,采用随机效应模型。采用RoB2评估偏倚风险。结果:入选10项符合条件的随机对照试验(rct),共1011例患者。8项rct (n = 901)的数据显示,30天死亡率显著降低(OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.42-0.93);然而,在肾脏替代治疗的需求(OR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.23-2.55)、机械通气持续时间(MD: 0.27; 95% CI: -3.09-3.63)、血管加压治疗(MD: -3.70; 95% CI: -32.88-25.48)、住院时间(MD: -0.87; 95% CI: -4.97-3.25)或重症监护病房住院时间(MD: 0.44; 95% CI: -1.90-2.77)方面没有显著差异。结论:与固定容量复苏相比,个性化液体复苏可降低脓毒症患者30天死亡率。然而,考虑到总体样本量相对较小,小型单中心研究占主导地位,以及证据的中低确定性,观察到的死亡率益处应谨慎解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
2.90%
发文量
48
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书