Aggressive versus controlled fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
10.1097/CM9.0000000000002684
- Author:
Kun HE
1
;
Lin GAO
2
;
Zihan YANG
3
;
Yuelun ZHANG
4
;
Tianrui HUA
3
;
Wenmo HU
1
;
Dong WU
1
;
Lu KE
2
Author Information
1. Department of Gastroenterology, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China.
2. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Center of Severe Acute Pancreatitis (CSAP), Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210010, China.
3. Department of Internal Medicine, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China.
4. Medical Research Center, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Humans;
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic;
Fluid Therapy;
Hypovolemia;
Pancreatitis/therapy*
- From:
Chinese Medical Journal
2023;136(10):1166-1173
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND:Early fluid resuscitation is one of the fundamental treatments for acute pancreatitis (AP), but there is no consensus on the optimal fluid rate. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of aggressive vs. controlled fluid resuscitation (CFR) in AP.
METHODS:The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched up to September 30, 2022, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing aggressive with controlled rates of early fluid resuscitation in AP patients without organ failure on admission. The following keywords were used in the search strategy: "pancreatitis," "fluid therapy,""fluid resuscitation,"and "randomized controlled trial." There was no language restriction. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to control the risk of random errors and assess the conclusions.
RESULTS:A total of five RCTs, involving 481 participants, were included in this study. For primary outcomes, there was no significant difference in the development of severe AP (relative risk [RR]: 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-3.68; P = 0.07; n = 437; moderate quality of evidence) or hypovolemia (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.32-2.97; P = 0.97; n = 437; moderate quality of evidence) between the aggressive and CFR groups. A significantly higher risk of fluid overload (RR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.53-6.93; P <0.01; n = 249; low quality of evidence) was observed in the aggressive fluid resuscitation (AFR) group than the controlled group. Additionally, the risk of intensive care unit admission ( P = 0.02) and the length of hospital stay ( P <0.01) as partial secondary outcomes were higher in the AFR group. TSA suggested that more studies were required to draw precise conclusions.
CONCLUSION:For AP patients without organ failure on admission, CFR may be superior to AFR with respect to both efficacy and safety outcomes.
REGISTRATION:PROSPERO; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ; CRD 42022363945.
