Efficacy of limited fluid resuscitation in patients with hemorrhagic shock: a meta-analysis

Chenyang Duan; Tao Li; Liangming Liu

Efficacy of limited fluid resuscitation in patients with hemorrhagic shock: a meta-analysis

Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Jul 15;8(7):11645-56. eCollection 2015.

Authors

Chenyang Duan¹, Tao Li¹, Liangming Liu¹

Affiliation

¹ Department of Research Institute of Surgery, State Key Laboratory of Trauma, Burns and Combined Injury, Daping Hospital, Third Military Medical University Chongqing 400042, P. R. China.

PMID: 26380001
PMCID: PMC4565384

Abstract

Backgrounds: The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of limited fluid resuscitation during active hemorrhage compared with regular fluid resuscitation and provide strong evidences for the improvement of fluid resuscitation strategies in uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock.

Methods: Electronic searches were performed using PubMed, Medline, Embase and CNKI in accordance with pre-set guidelines. Clinical trials and observation studies were included or excluded according to the criteria. The endpoints examined were mortality, hemoglobin (Hb), platelets (PLT), hematocrit (Hct), prothrombin Time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), base excess (BE), blood lactic acid (BLA) and the main complications, such as multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) and acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). Risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% Cl) were calculated using fixed/random effect model.

Results: The search indentified 11 studies including 1482 subjects. 725 hemorrhagic patients were treated with limited fluid resuscitation while 757 patients undertook regular fluid resuscitation during active hemorrhage. Limited fluid resuscitation had its advantage to reduce the mortality in hemorrhagic shock (RR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.56-0.81; P < 0.0001) and easily controlled the blood routine index close to normal compared with regular fluid resuscitation (Hb: MD = 13.04; 95% CI = 2.69-23.38; P = 0.01. PLT: MD = 23.16; 95% CI = 6.41-39.91; P = 0.007. Hct: MD = 0.02; 95% CI = 0.02-0.03; P < 0.00001). LFR also had shorter PT and APTT compared with RFR (PT: MD = -2.81; 95% CI = -3.44--2.17; P < 0.00001 and APTT: MD = -5.14; 95% CI = -6.16--4.12; P < 0.00001). As for blood gas analysis, LFR reduced the decrease of BE (MD = 2.48; 95% CI = 1.11-3.85; P = 0.0004) and increase of BLA (MD = -0.65; 95% CI = -0.85--0.44; P < 0.00001). Besides, LFR may also reduce the occurrence of postoperative complications (MODS: RR= 0.37; 95% CI = 0.21-0.66; P = 0.0008. ARDS: RR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.21-0.60; P < 0.0001).

Conclusion: The results provide convincing evidence that support the continued investigation and use of limited fluid resuscitation during active hemorrhage in the trauma setting.

Keywords: Limited fluid resuscitation; hemorrhagic shock; mortality; trauma.