Resuscitation with IV fluids is a critical component in the management of sepsis. Although the optimal volume of IV fluid is unknown, there is evidence that excessive administration can be deleterious. Static measures of volume status have not proven to be meaningful resuscitative endpoints. Determination of volume responsiveness has putative benefits over static measures, but its effect on outcomes is unknown. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine if resuscitation with a volume responsiveness-guided approach leads to improved outcomes in septic patients.
Data sources: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from inception until April 2018.
Study selection: Prospective studies of patients with sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock that compared volume responsiveness-guided fluid resuscitation to standard techniques and reported mortality data.
Data extraction: We extracted study details, patient characteristics, volume responsiveness assessment method, and mortality data.
Data synthesis: Of the 1,224 abstracts and 31 full-texts evaluated, four studies (total 365 patients) met inclusion criteria. Using random effects modeling, the pooled odds ratio for mortality at time of longest follow-up with a volume responsiveness-guided strategy was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.49-1.54). Pooling of clinical data was not possibly owing to heterogeneity of reporting in individual studies.
Conclusions: We found no significant difference in mortality between septic patients resuscitated with a volume responsiveness-guided approach compared with standard resuscitative strategies. It remains unclear whether the findings are due to the small sample size or a true lack of efficacy of a volume responsiveness-guided approach.
Keywords: cardiac output; echocardiography; fluid responsiveness; mortality; sepsis; volume responsiveness.
Copyright (c) 2019 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.