Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill people

Lewis, Sharon R. and Pritchard, Michael W. and Evans, David John William and Butler, Andrew R. and Alderson, Phil and Smith, Andrew Fairley and Roberts, Ian (2018) Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill people. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2018. ISSN 1469-493X

[img]
Preview
PDF (Lewis_et_al-2018-Cochrane_Database_of_Systematic_Reviews)
Lewis_et_al_2018_Cochrane_Database_of_Systematic_Reviews.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial.

Download (2MB)

Abstract

Background Critically ill people may lose fluid because of serious conditions, infections (e.g. sepsis), trauma, or burns, and need additional fluids urgently to prevent dehydration or kidney failure. Colloid or crystalloid solutions may be used for this purpose. Crystalloids have small molecules, are cheap, easy to use, and provide immediate fluid resuscitation, but may increase oedema. Colloids have larger molecules, cost more, and may provide swifter volume expansion in the intravascular space, but may induce allergic reactions, blood clotting disorders, and kidney failure. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013. Objectives To assess the effect of using colloids versus crystalloids in critically ill people requiring fluid volume replacement on mortality, need for blood transfusion or renal replacement therapy (RRT), and adverse events (specifically: allergic reactions, itching, rashes). Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two other databases on 23 February 2018. We also searched clinical trials registers. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐RCTs of critically ill people who required fluid volume replacement in hospital or emergency out‐of‐hospital settings. Participants had trauma, burns, or medical conditions such as sepsis. We excluded neonates, elective surgery and caesarean section. We compared a colloid (suspended in any crystalloid solution) versus a crystalloid (isotonic or hypertonic). Data collection and analysis Independently, two review authors assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and synthesised findings. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. Main results We included 69 studies (65 RCTs, 4 quasi‐RCTs) with 30,020 participants. Twenty‐eight studied starch solutions, 20 dextrans, seven gelatins, and 22 albumin or fresh frozen plasma (FFP); each type of colloid was compared to crystalloids. Participants had a range of conditions typical of critical illness. Ten studies were in out‐of‐hospital settings. We noted risk of selection bias in some studies, and, as most studies were not prospectively registered, risk of selective outcome reporting. Fourteen studies included participants in the crystalloid group who received or may have received colloids, which might have influenced results. We compared four types of colloid (i.e. starches; dextrans; gelatins; and albumin or FFP) versus crystalloids. Starches versus crystalloids We found moderate‐certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using starches or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow‐up (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.09; 11,177 participants; 24 studies); within 90 days (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 10,415 participants; 15 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.09; 10,135 participants; 11 studies). We found moderate‐certainty evidence that starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.39; 1917 participants; 8 studies), and RRT (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.48; 8527 participants; 9 studies). Very low‐certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether either fluid affected adverse events: we found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 2.59, 95% CI 0.27 to 24.91; 7757 participants; 3 studies), fewer incidences of itching with crystalloids (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.82; 6946 participants; 2 studies), and fewer incidences of rashes with crystalloids (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.89; 7007 participants; 2 studies). Dextrans versus crystalloids We found moderate‐certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using dextrans or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow‐up (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11; 4736 participants; 19 studies); or within 90 days or 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; 3353 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether dextrans or crystalloids reduce the need for blood transfusion, as we found little or no difference in blood transfusions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; 1272 participants, 3 studies; very low‐certainty evidence). We found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 144.93; 739 participants; 4 studies; very low‐certainty evidence). No studies measured RRT. Gelatins versus crystalloids We found low‐certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between gelatins or crystalloids in mortality: at end of follow‐up (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.08; 1698 participants; 6 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; 1388 participants; 1 study); or within 30 days (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.16; 1388 participants; 1 study). Evidence for blood transfusion was very low certainty (3 studies), with a low event rate or data not reported by intervention. Data for RRT were not reported separately for gelatins (1 study). We found little or no difference between groups in allergic reactions (very low‐certainty evidence). Albumin or FFP versus crystalloids We found moderate‐certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using albumin or FFP or using crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow‐up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 13,047 participants; 20 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.04; 12,492 participants; 10 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 12,506 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether either fluid type reduces need for blood transfusion (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80; 290 participants; 3 studies; very low‐certainty evidence). Using albumin or FFP versus crystalloids may make little or no difference to the need for RRT (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.27; 3028 participants; 2 studies; very low‐certainty evidence), or in allergic reactions (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.33; 2097 participants, 1 study; very low‐certainty evidence). Authors' conclusions Using starches, dextrans, albumin or FFP (moderate‐certainty evidence), or gelatins (low‐certainty evidence), versus crystalloids probably makes little or no difference to mortality. Starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion and RRT (moderate‐certainty evidence), and albumin or FFP may make little or no difference to the need for renal replacement therapy (low‐certainty evidence). Evidence for blood transfusions for dextrans, and albumin or FFP, is uncertain. Similarly, evidence for adverse events is uncertain. Certainty of evidence may improve with inclusion of three ongoing studies and seven studies awaiting classification, in future updates.

Item Type:
Journal Article
Journal or Publication Title:
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Additional Information:
This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Lewis SR, Pritchard MW, Evans DJW, Butler AR, Alderson P, Smith AF, Roberts I. Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill people. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 8. Art. No.: CD000567. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000567.pub7. which has been published in final form at https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD000567.pub7 This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.
Uncontrolled Keywords:
/dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/2700
Subjects:
ID Code:
126980
Deposited By:
Deposited On:
20 Aug 2018 10:48
Refereed?:
Yes
Published?:
Published
Last Modified:
26 Sep 2020 05:25