Logo

Log In Sign Up |  An official publication of: American College of Emergency Physicians
Navigation
  • Home
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Clinical
    • Airway Managment
    • Case Reports
    • Critical Care
    • Guidelines
    • Imaging & Ultrasound
    • Pain & Palliative Care
    • Pediatrics
    • Resuscitation
    • Trauma & Injury
  • Resource Centers
    • mTBI Resource Center
  • Career
    • Practice Management
      • Benchmarking
      • Reimbursement & Coding
      • Care Team
      • Legal
      • Operations
      • Quality & Safety
    • Awards
    • Certification
    • Compensation
    • Early Career
    • Education
    • Leadership
    • Profiles
    • Retirement
    • Work-Life Balance
  • Columns
    • ACEP4U
    • Airway
    • Benchmarking
    • Brief19
    • By the Numbers
    • Coding Wizard
    • EM Cases
    • End of the Rainbow
    • Equity Equation
    • FACEPs in the Crowd
    • Forensic Facts
    • From the College
    • Images in EM
    • Kids Korner
    • Medicolegal Mind
    • Opinion
      • Break Room
      • New Spin
      • Pro-Con
    • Pearls From EM Literature
    • Policy Rx
    • Practice Changers
    • Problem Solvers
    • Residency Spotlight
    • Resident Voice
    • Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine
    • Sound Advice
    • Special OPs
    • Toxicology Q&A
    • WorldTravelERs
  • Resources
    • ACEP.org
    • ACEP Knowledge Quiz
    • Issue Archives
    • CME Now
    • Annual Scientific Assembly
      • ACEP14
      • ACEP15
      • ACEP16
      • ACEP17
      • ACEP18
      • ACEP19
    • Annals of Emergency Medicine
    • JACEP Open
    • Emergency Medicine Foundation
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Medical Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Awards
    • Authors
    • Article Submission
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright Information

New Adventures (and Studies!) in Fluid Resuscitation

By Ryan Patrick Radecki, MD, MS | on October 5, 2022 | 0 Comment
Pearls From the Medical Literature
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

For a ubiquitous intervention such as intravenous fluid resuscitation, it’s a surprise to see reassessment continuing apace. Since the inception of early goal-directed therapy, emergency departments (EDs) have been dumping fluids, typically 0.9 percent sodium chloride solution, into patients in ever-increasing quantities. Even as early goal-directed therapy has fallen out of favor, its ongoing evolution has discarded only the most invasive bits, while keeping early antibiotics and aggressive resuscitation.

You Might Also Like
  • Time-to-Hospital May Be Key to Disparate Results in Studies on Pre-Hospital Plasma Administration
  • ACEP15 Session: Best Practices in Sepsis Fluid Therapy
  • Data Suggests Lactated Ringer’s Is Better than Normal Saline
Explore This Issue
ACEP Now: Vol 41 – No 10 – October 2022

0.9 percent sodium chloride is hardly physiologically equivalent to the intravascular circulation, nor does it specifically address electrolyte losses or variance in the setting of critical illness. The popularized treatment alternative remains so-called balanced crystalloid solutions. These solutions typically include some small amount of sodium chloride, but may also include sodium gluconate, sodium acetate, sodium lactate, calcium chloride, potassium chloride, or potentially even magnesium chloride. The pH of these solutions is closer to the normal physiologic value of 7.4, rather than the pH of roughly 5.5 seen with 0.9 percent sodium chloride.

Many trials have been published comparing the two types of electrolyte solutions, including those in the ED and in the intensive care unit (ICU). Just this spring, such a comparison has been published, and again, no statistically significant difference could be detected between 0.9 percent saline and a balanced solution, in this case Plasma-Lyte 148.1 The most notable difference in thinking following this most recent randomized controlled trial is its accompanying updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the same topic.2 Taking stock of the entirety of all the high-quality randomized controlled trials, the authors of the meta-analysis pooled nearly 35,000 ICU patients together to develop a more precise estimate of any treatment effect associated with use of balanced crystalloid solutions. Despite this larger sample size, no statistically significant difference in mortality could be identified.

However, the story does not quite end there. The risk ratio from their pooled low-bias study cohort was 0.96 [95 percent CI 0.91 to 1.01], non-significantly favoring the balanced solutions. The authors then utilize a Bayesian approach to assessing the probability that balanced fluid solutions are superior. Based on a vague assumption that the prevailing observational evidence and opinion is insufficient to strongly tilt the results of any analysis, the authors conclude there is an 89.5 percent posterior probability that balanced crystalloids reduce mortality.

Considering that this analysis encompasses 35,000 patients and is only able to eke out such a minor advantage to treatment with balanced fluids, the absolute magnitude of any treatment effect must be quite small. Then, these pooled studies are all from the ICU, limiting their generalizability to the ED. The simple way out is to say, “It doesn’t matter, and, if it matters, it only matters a tiny amount.” Conversely, sepsis is implicated as a leading cause of death worldwide, and significant volumes of intravenous fluid are given in emergency departments each day. Even a miniscule relative improvement in mortality—a rather important patient-oriented outcome—becomes a significant absolute excess in survival when multiplied across millions of lives. Whenever the option exists to choose a balanced solution, it is likely the ever-so-slightly better choice.

Pages: 1 2 3 | Single Page

Topics: IV fluidPlasmaResuscitationSaline

Related

  • Case Report: Coronary Vasospasm-Induced Cardiac Arrest

    December 6, 2024 - 0 Comment
  • Neonatal Resuscitation Tips

    November 6, 2024 - 0 Comment
  • Case Report: Cardiac Arrest in a Child’s Structurally Normal Heart

    October 29, 2024 - 0 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now May 03

Download PDF

Read More

No Responses to “New Adventures (and Studies!) in Fluid Resuscitation”

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*
*

Wiley
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • Advertise
  • Cookie Preferences
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 2333-2603