• Koen Rijs, Frédéric J Mercier, D Nuala Lucas, Rolf Rossaint, Markus Klimek, and Michael Heesen.
• From the Department of Anaesthesia, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands (KR, MK), the Department of Anaesthesia, Hôpital Antoine Béclère, GHU AP-HP. Université Paris-Saclay, Clamart, France (FJM), the Department of Anaesthesia, Northwick Park Hospital, Harrow, UK (DNL), the Department of Anaesthesia, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany (RR), and the Department of Anaesthesia, Kantonsspital Baden, Baden, Switzerland (MH).
• Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2020 Dec 1; 37 (12): 112611421126-1142.

BackgroundFluid loading is one of the recognised measures to prevent hypotension due to spinal anaesthesia in women scheduled for a caesarean section.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate the current evidence on fluid loading in the prevention of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis and meta-regression.Data SourcesMedline, Epub, Embase.com (Embase and Medline), Cochrane Central, Web of Science and Google Scholar were used.Eligibility CriteriaOnly randomised controlled trials were used. Patients included women undergoing elective caesarean section who received either crystalloid or colloid fluid therapy as a preload or coload. The comparator was a combination of either a different fluid or time of infusion.ResultsA total of 49 studies (4317 patients) were included. Network meta-analysis concluded that colloid coload and preload offered the highest chance of success (97 and 67%, respectively). Conventional meta-analysis showed that crystalloid preload is associated with a significantly higher incidence of maternal hypotension than colloid preload: risk ratio 1.48 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.69, P < 0.0001, I = 60%). However, this result was not supported by Trial Sequential Analysis. There was a significant dose-response effect for crystalloid volume preload (regression coefficient = -0.073), which was not present in the analysis of only double-blind studies. There was no dose-response effect for the other fluid regimes.ConclusionUnlike previous meta-analysies, we found a lack of data obviating an evidence-based recommendation. In most studies, vasopressors were not given prophylactically as is recommended. Studies on the best fluid regimen in combination with prophylactic vasopressors are needed. Due to official european usage restrictions on the most studied colloid (HES), we recommend crystalloid coload as the most appropriate fluid regimen.Trial RegistrationCRD42018099347.

17 keywords...

hide…