Meta-analysis of colloids versus crystalloids in critically ill, trauma and surgical patients
- 2 November 2015
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in British Journal of Surgery
- Vol. 103 (1), 14-26
- https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9943
Abstract
Background: There is uncertainty regarding the safety of different volume replacement solutions. The aim of this study was systematically to review evidence of crystalloid versus colloid solutions, and to determine whether these results are influenced by trial design or clinical setting. Methods: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were used to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared crystalloids with colloids as volume replacement solutions in patients with traumatic injuries, those undergoing surgery and in critically ill patients. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for mortality and major morbidity including renal injury were pooled using fixed-effect and random-effects models. Results: Some 59 RCTs involving 16 889 patients were included in the analysis. Forty-one studies (69 per cent) were found to have selection, detection or performance bias. Colloid administration did not lead to increased mortality (32 trials, 16 647 patients; OR 0·99, 95 per cent c.i. 0·92 to 1·06), but did increase the risk of developing acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy (9 trials, 11 648 patients; OR 1·35, 1·17 to 1·57). Sensitivity analyses that excluded small and low-quality studies did not substantially alter these results. Subgroup analyses by type of colloid showed that increased mortality and renal replacement therapy were associated with use of pentastarch, and increased risk of renal injury and renal replacement therapy with use of tetrastarch. Subgroup analysis indicated that the risks of mortality and renal injury attributable to colloids were observed only in critically ill patients with sepsis. Conclusion: Current general restrictions on the use of colloid solutions are not supported by evidence.Keywords
This publication has 77 references indexed in Scilit:
- Hydroxyethyl starch 6%, 130/0.4 vs. a balanced crystalloid solution in cardiopulmonary bypass priming: a randomized, prospective studyJournal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, 2013
- Hydroxyethyl Starch or Saline for Fluid Resuscitation in Intensive CareThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2012
- Hydroxyethyl Starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer's Acetate in Severe SepsisThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2012
- Assessment of hemodynamic efficacy and safety of 6% hydroxyethylstarch 130/0.4 vs. 0.9% NaCl fluid replacement in patients with severe sepsis: The CRYSTMAS studyCritical Care, 2012
- Out-of-hospital Hypertonic Resuscitation After Traumatic Hypovolemic ShockAnnals of Surgery, 2011
- Acute kidney injury after trauma: Prevalence, clinical characteristics and RIFLE classificationIndian Journal of Critical Care Medicine, 2010
- Fluid resuscitation in the management of early septic shock (FINESS): a randomized controlled feasibility trialCanadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie, 2008
- Hydroxyethyl starch versus Ringer solution in cardiopulmonary bypass prime solutions (a randomized controlled trial)Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, 2008
- Effects of resuscitation with crystalloid fluids on cardiac function in patients with severe sepsisBMC Infectious Diseases, 2008
- Influence of dextran-70 on systemic inflammatory response and myocardial ischaemia-reperfusion following cardiac operationsCritical Care, 2007