Cargando…

Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing conservative versus liberal intravenous fluid administration in patients with sepsis or septic shock at risk of fluid overload

INTRODUCTION: Intravenous crystalloid fluid resuscitation forms a crucial part of the early intervention bundle for sepsis and septic shock, with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommending a 30 mL/kg fluid bolus within the first hour. Compliance with this suggested target varies in patien...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bharwani, Aadil, Pérez, María Lucía, Englesakis, Marina, Meyhoff, Tine Sylvest, Perner, Anders, Sivapalan, Praleene, Wilcox, Mary Elizabeth
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10230890/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37225275
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069601
_version_ 1785051634358812672
author Bharwani, Aadil
Pérez, María Lucía
Englesakis, Marina
Meyhoff, Tine Sylvest
Perner, Anders
Sivapalan, Praleene
Wilcox, Mary Elizabeth
author_facet Bharwani, Aadil
Pérez, María Lucía
Englesakis, Marina
Meyhoff, Tine Sylvest
Perner, Anders
Sivapalan, Praleene
Wilcox, Mary Elizabeth
author_sort Bharwani, Aadil
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Intravenous crystalloid fluid resuscitation forms a crucial part of the early intervention bundle for sepsis and septic shock, with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommending a 30 mL/kg fluid bolus within the first hour. Compliance with this suggested target varies in patients with comorbidities such as congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease and cirrhosis due to concerns regarding iatrogenic fluid overload. However, it remains unclear whether resuscitation with higher fluid volumes puts them at greater risk of adverse outcomes. Thus, this systematic review will synthesise evidence from existing studies to assess the effects of a conservative as compared with a liberal approach to fluid resuscitation in patients at greater perceived risk of fluid overload due to comorbid conditions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol was registered on PROSPERO and has been drafted following the checklist of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. We will search MEDLINE, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process, In-Data-Review & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase, Embase Classic, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL Complete and ClinicalTrials.gov. A preliminary search of these databases was performed from their inception to 30 August 2022. The risk of bias and random errors will be assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised clinical trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for case–control and cohort studies. If a sufficient number of comparable studies are identified, we will perform a meta-analysis applying random effects model. We will investigate heterogeneity using a combination of visual inspection of the funnel plot as well as the Egger’s test. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required for this study since no original data will be collected. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022348181.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10230890
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102308902023-06-01 Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing conservative versus liberal intravenous fluid administration in patients with sepsis or septic shock at risk of fluid overload Bharwani, Aadil Pérez, María Lucía Englesakis, Marina Meyhoff, Tine Sylvest Perner, Anders Sivapalan, Praleene Wilcox, Mary Elizabeth BMJ Open Intensive Care INTRODUCTION: Intravenous crystalloid fluid resuscitation forms a crucial part of the early intervention bundle for sepsis and septic shock, with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommending a 30 mL/kg fluid bolus within the first hour. Compliance with this suggested target varies in patients with comorbidities such as congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease and cirrhosis due to concerns regarding iatrogenic fluid overload. However, it remains unclear whether resuscitation with higher fluid volumes puts them at greater risk of adverse outcomes. Thus, this systematic review will synthesise evidence from existing studies to assess the effects of a conservative as compared with a liberal approach to fluid resuscitation in patients at greater perceived risk of fluid overload due to comorbid conditions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol was registered on PROSPERO and has been drafted following the checklist of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. We will search MEDLINE, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process, In-Data-Review & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase, Embase Classic, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL Complete and ClinicalTrials.gov. A preliminary search of these databases was performed from their inception to 30 August 2022. The risk of bias and random errors will be assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised clinical trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for case–control and cohort studies. If a sufficient number of comparable studies are identified, we will perform a meta-analysis applying random effects model. We will investigate heterogeneity using a combination of visual inspection of the funnel plot as well as the Egger’s test. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required for this study since no original data will be collected. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022348181. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-05-23 /pmc/articles/PMC10230890/ /pubmed/37225275 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069601 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Intensive Care
Bharwani, Aadil
Pérez, María Lucía
Englesakis, Marina
Meyhoff, Tine Sylvest
Perner, Anders
Sivapalan, Praleene
Wilcox, Mary Elizabeth
Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing conservative versus liberal intravenous fluid administration in patients with sepsis or septic shock at risk of fluid overload
title Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing conservative versus liberal intravenous fluid administration in patients with sepsis or septic shock at risk of fluid overload
title_full Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing conservative versus liberal intravenous fluid administration in patients with sepsis or septic shock at risk of fluid overload
title_fullStr Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing conservative versus liberal intravenous fluid administration in patients with sepsis or septic shock at risk of fluid overload
title_full_unstemmed Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing conservative versus liberal intravenous fluid administration in patients with sepsis or septic shock at risk of fluid overload
title_short Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing conservative versus liberal intravenous fluid administration in patients with sepsis or septic shock at risk of fluid overload
title_sort protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing conservative versus liberal intravenous fluid administration in patients with sepsis or septic shock at risk of fluid overload
topic Intensive Care
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10230890/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37225275
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069601
work_keys_str_mv AT bharwaniaadil protocolforasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisassessingconservativeversusliberalintravenousfluidadministrationinpatientswithsepsisorsepticshockatriskoffluidoverload
AT perezmarialucia protocolforasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisassessingconservativeversusliberalintravenousfluidadministrationinpatientswithsepsisorsepticshockatriskoffluidoverload
AT englesakismarina protocolforasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisassessingconservativeversusliberalintravenousfluidadministrationinpatientswithsepsisorsepticshockatriskoffluidoverload
AT meyhofftinesylvest protocolforasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisassessingconservativeversusliberalintravenousfluidadministrationinpatientswithsepsisorsepticshockatriskoffluidoverload
AT perneranders protocolforasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisassessingconservativeversusliberalintravenousfluidadministrationinpatientswithsepsisorsepticshockatriskoffluidoverload
AT sivapalanpraleene protocolforasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisassessingconservativeversusliberalintravenousfluidadministrationinpatientswithsepsisorsepticshockatriskoffluidoverload
AT wilcoxmaryelizabeth protocolforasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisassessingconservativeversusliberalintravenousfluidadministrationinpatientswithsepsisorsepticshockatriskoffluidoverload