Conservative fluid management or deresuscitation for patients with sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome following the resuscitation phase of critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

It is unknown whether a conservative approach to fluid administration or deresuscitation (active removal of fluid using diuretics or renal replacement therapy) is beneficial following haemodynamic stabilisation of critically ill patients.

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of conservative or deresuscitative fluid strategies in adults and children with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis or systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in the post-resuscitation phase of critical illness.

Methods

We searched Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials from 1980 to June 2016, and manually reviewed relevant conference proceedings from 2009 to the present. Two reviewers independently assessed search results for inclusion and undertook data extraction and quality appraisal. We included randomised trials comparing fluid regimens with differing fluid balances between groups, and observational studies investigating the relationship between fluid balance and clinical outcomes.

Results

Forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Marked clinical heterogeneity was evident. In a meta-analysis of 11 randomised trials (2051 patients) using a random-effects model, we found no significant difference in mortality with conservative or deresuscitative strategies compared with a liberal strategy or usual care [pooled risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.82–1.02, I2 = 0 %]. A conservative or deresuscitative strategy resulted in increased ventilator-free days (mean difference 1.82 days, 95 % CI 0.53–3.10, I2 = 9 %) and reduced length of ICU stay (mean difference −1.88 days, 95 % CI −0.12 to −3.64, I2 = 75 %) compared with a liberal strategy or standard care.

Conclusions

In adults and children with ARDS, sepsis or SIRS, a conservative or deresuscitative fluid strategy results in an increased number of ventilator-free days and a decreased length of ICU stay compared with a liberal strategy or standard care. The effect on mortality remains uncertain. Large randomised trials are needed to determine optimal fluid strategies in critical illness.

Patient-reported quality-of-life analysis of radium-223 dichloride from the phase III ALSYMPCA study

BACKGROUND: Radium-223 dichloride (radium-223), a first-in-class α-emitting radiopharmaceutical, is recommended in both pre- and post-docetaxel settings in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and symptomatic bone metastases based on overall survival benefit demonstrated in the phase III ALSYMPCA study. ALSYMPCA included prospective measurements of health-related quality of life (QOL) using two validated instruments: the general EuroQoL 5D (EQ-5D) and the disease-specific Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P).

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Analyses were conducted to determine treatment effects of radium-223 plus standard of care (SOC) versus placebo plus SOC on QOL using FACT-P and EQ-5D. Outcomes assessed were percentage of patients experiencing improvement, percentage of patients experiencing worsening, and mean QOL scores during the study.

RESULTS: Analyses were carried out on the intent-to-treat population of patients randomized to receive radium-223 (n = 614) or placebo (n = 307). The mean baseline EQ-5D utility and FACT-P total scores were similar between treatment groups. A significantly higher percentage of patients receiving radium-223 experienced meaningful improvement in EQ-5D utility score on treatment versus placebo {29.2% versus 18.5%, respectively; P = 0.004; odds ratio (OR) = 1.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21-2.74]}. Findings were similar for FACT-P total score [24.6% versus 16.1%, respectively; P = 0.020; OR = 1.70 (95% CI 1.08-2.65)]. A lower percentage of patients receiving radium-223 experienced meaningful worsening versus placebo measured by EQ-5D utility score and FACT-P total score. Prior docetaxel use and current bisphosphonate use did not affect these findings. Treatment was a significant predictor of EQ-5D utility score, with radium-223 associated with higher scores versus placebo (0.56 versus 0.50, respectively; P = 0.002). Findings were similar for FACT-P total score (99.08 versus 95.22, respectively; P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS: QOL data from ALSYMPCA demonstrated that improved survival with radium-223 is accompanied by significant QOL benefits, including a higher percentage of patients with meaningful QOL improvement and a slower decline in QOL over time in patients with CRPC.