These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Systematic review of ultrasound-guided fluid resuscitation vs. early goal-directed therapy in patients with septic shock].
    Author: Yuan J, Yang X, Yuan Q, Li M, Chen Y, Dong C.
    Journal: Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue; 2020 Jan; 32(1):56-61. PubMed ID: 32148232.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the efficacy of ultrasound-guided fluid resuscitation and early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) in patients with septic shock. METHODS: Multiple databases including Wanfang, CNKI, SinoMed, VIP, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched from initial to August 2019 for randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies about the comparison of ultrasound-guided fluid resuscitation and EGDT on resuscitation effect in patients with septic shock. Language, country and region were unlimited. Data extraction and quality evaluation were carried out by means of independent review and cross check results by two researchers. RESULTS: Finally, only two English RCT studies were enrolled. In the two RCT studies, the ultrasound groups used inferior vena cava collapse index (VCCI) and ultrasound score to guide fluid resuscitation, which resulted in clinical heterogeneity. Because the results could not be pooled, only systematic review, not meta-analysis, could be done. There were measurement bias and selection bias in the two RCT studies, and the literature quality level was B and C respectively. System review results showed that using ultrasound would reduce 7-day mortality (15.0% vs. 35.0%, P = 0.039) and prescribe less of 24-hour intravenous fluids (mL: 900 vs. 1 850, P < 0.01) for patients with septic shock as compared with EGDT. Ultrasound was easy to assess the reactive capacity and cardiac function of patients with septic shock, so as to decrease the incidence of pulmonary edema, which was significantly lower than EGDT (15.0% vs. 37.5%, P = 0.022). However, there was no statistically significant difference in 28-day mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation or length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The ultrasound-guided fluid resuscitation may be useful and practical for septic shock patients within 7 days after admission as compared with EGDT, but it cannot reduce the 28-day mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation or length of ICU stay.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]