Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients

277Citations
Citations of this article
797Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Colloid solutions are widely used in fluid resuscitation of critically ill patients. There are several choices of colloid, and there is ongoing debate about the relative effectiveness of colloids compared to crystalloid fluids. Objectives: To assess the effects of colloids compared to crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register (17 October 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library) (Issue 10, 2012), MEDLINE (Ovid) 1946 to October 2012, EMBASE (Ovid) 1980 to October 2012, ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (1970 to October 2012), ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (1990 to October 2012), PubMed (October 2012), www.clinical trials.gov and www.controlled-trials.com. We also searched the bibliographies of relevant studies and review articles. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of colloids compared to crystalloids, in patients requiring volume replacement. We excluded cross-over trials and trials involving pregnant women and neonates. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data and rated quality of allocation concealment. We analysed trials with a 'double-intervention', such as those comparing colloid in hypertonic crystalloid to isotonic crystalloid, separately. We stratified the analysis according to colloid type and quality of allocation concealment. Main results: We identified 78 eligible trials; 70 of these presented mortality data. Colloids compared to crystalloids Albumin or plasma protein fraction - 24 trials reported data on mortality, including a total of 9920 patients. The pooled risk ratio (RR) from these trials was 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.10). When we excluded the trial with poor-quality allocation concealment, pooled RR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.09). Hydroxyethyl starch - 25 trials compared hydroxyethyl starch with crystalloids and included 9147 patients. The pooled RR was 1.10 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.19). Modified gelatin - 11 trials compared modified gelatin with crystalloid and included 506 patients. The pooled RR was 0.91 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.72). (When the trials by Boldt et al were removed from the three preceding analyses, the results were unchanged.) Dextran - nine trials compared dextran with a crystalloid and included 834 patients. The pooled RR was 1.24 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.65). Colloids in hypertonic crystalloid compared to isotonic crystalloid Nine trials compared dextran in hypertonic crystalloid with isotonic crystalloid, including 1985 randomised participants. Pooled RR for mortality was 0.91 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.06). Authors' conclusions: There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials that resuscitation with colloids reduces the risk of death, compared to resuscitation with crystalloids, in patients with trauma, burns or following surgery. Furthermore, the use of hydroxyethyl starch might increase mortality. As colloids are not associated with an improvement in survival and are considerably more expensive than crystalloids, it is hard to see how their continued use in clinical practice can be justified.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Perel, P., Roberts, I., & Ker, K. (2013, February 28). Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000567.pub6

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free