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: Is restrictive fluid resuscitation beneficial not only for hemorrhagic shock but also for septic shock?: A meta-analysis.
    Author: Jiang S, Wu M, Lu X, Zhong Y, Kang X, Song Y, Fan Z.
    Journal: Medicine (Baltimore); 2021 Mar 26; 100(12):e25143. PubMed ID: 33761680.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Whether to use limited fluid resuscitation (LFR) in patients with hemorrhagic shock or septic shock remains controversial. This research was aimed to assess the pros and cons of utilizing LFR in hemorrhagic shock or septic shock patients. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of science, CNKI, VIP, and Wan Fang database searches included for articles published before December 15, 2020. Randomized controlled trials of LFR or adequate fluid resuscitation in hemorrhagic shock or septic shock patients were selected. RESULT: This meta-analysis including 28 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and registered 3288 patients. The 7 of 27 RCTs were the patients with septic shock. Others were traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients. Comparing LFR or adequate fluid resuscitation in hemorrhagic shock or septic shock patients, the summary odds ratio (OR) was 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.60, P < .00001) for mortality, 0.46 (95% CI 0.31-0.70, P = .0002) for multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), 0.35 (95% CI 0.25-0.47) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and 0.33 (95% CI 0.20-0.56) for disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). CONCLUSION: Limited fluid resuscitation is the benefit of both traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients and septic shock patients.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]