• CJEM · Mar 2023

    Meta Analysis

    The efficacy of prehospital IV fluid management in severely injured adult trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

    • Samuel Hébert, Erica Kohtakangas, Alanna Campbell, and Robert Ohle.
    • Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Sudbury, ON, Canada. shebert@nosm.ca.
    • CJEM. 2023 Mar 1; 25 (3): 200208200-208.

    PurposeThe most widely used prehospital strategy for the management of hemorrhagic shock or trauma accompanied by hypotension is fluid resuscitation. Though current guidelines suggest early and aggressive fluid resuscitation, contemporary literature suggests a more restrictive approach. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of low/ no IV fluids in comparison to standard resuscitation in reducing mortality for trauma patients in the prehospital setting.MethodsPopulation-adults with blunt or penetrating trauma in the prehospital setting with severe injury (defined as SBP < 90 mm Hg and/or a shock index > (1). Intervention-low-dose/no IV fluids. Comparison-standard resuscitation. Outcome-mortality. A librarian-assisted search of five databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL, Cochrane trials) was completed in June 2021 (updated in November 2022). ROBINS-1 and ROB-2 tools were used to assess risk of bias in observational and randomized studies, respectively. An inverse variance method and random-effects model of statistical analysis were utilized, with data reported as risk ratios with related 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity of studies was assessed through analysis of the I2 RESULTS: Seven studies (six observational and one randomized trial) were included, with three thousand and fifty study participants included for analysis. Four studies compared high- to low-dose fluids, and three compared fluids to no fluids. We found no difference in mortality when comparing standard resuscitation to restricted resuscitation (RR 0.99, 95% CI [0.80-1.22], I2 = 54%).ConclusionWeak, primarily observational evidence suggests that standard fluid resuscitation has no significant mortality benefit over restricting/withholding IV fluids in severe/hypotensive trauma. This review adds evidence to questioning the requirement for IV fluids in trauma given the lack of mortality benefit, in addition to demonstrating the need for more randomized studies in this area.© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP)/ Association Canadienne de Médecine d'Urgence (ACMU).

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…