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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |