Acetate- versus lactate-buffered crystalloid solutions: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
Research output: Contribution to journal › Review › Research › peer-review
Standard
Acetate- versus lactate-buffered crystalloid solutions : A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. / Ellekjaer, Karen Louise; Perner, Anders; Sivapalan, Praleene; Møller, Morten Hylander.
In: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, Vol. 66, No. 7, 2022, p. 782-794.Research output: Contribution to journal › Review › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Acetate- versus lactate-buffered crystalloid solutions
T2 - A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
AU - Ellekjaer, Karen Louise
AU - Perner, Anders
AU - Sivapalan, Praleene
AU - Møller, Morten Hylander
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Objective: There is a widespread use of buffered crystalloid solutions in clinical practice. However, guidelines do not distinguish between specific types of buffered solutions and clinical equipoise exists. We aimed to assess the desirable and undesirable effects of acetate- versus lactate-buffered solutions in hospitalised patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials assessing the use of acetate- versus lactate-buffered solutions for intravenous administration in hospitalised adults and children. The primary outcome was all-cause short-term mortality. We adhered to our published protocol, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, the Cochrane Handbook and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: We included five RCTs enrolling 390 patients. We found no statistically significant difference in short-term mortality (random effects, risk ratio [RR] 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06–1.51, p =.14, I2 = 0%) or hospital length of stay (LOS) (random effects, mean difference [MD]—1.31, 95% CI −3.66 to 1.05, p =.28, I2 = 0%) between acetate- versus lactate-buffered solutions. The quality of evidence was very low. Data regarding intensive care unit LOS were reported by three trials and duration of vasopressor treatment by one trial; none of these data allowed for pooling in meta-analyses. No trials reported data on long-term mortality, health-related quality of life, adverse events, duration of mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy. Conclusion: In this systematic review, we found very low quantity and quality of evidence on the use of acetate- versus lactate-buffered solutions in hospitalised patients.
AB - Objective: There is a widespread use of buffered crystalloid solutions in clinical practice. However, guidelines do not distinguish between specific types of buffered solutions and clinical equipoise exists. We aimed to assess the desirable and undesirable effects of acetate- versus lactate-buffered solutions in hospitalised patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials assessing the use of acetate- versus lactate-buffered solutions for intravenous administration in hospitalised adults and children. The primary outcome was all-cause short-term mortality. We adhered to our published protocol, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, the Cochrane Handbook and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: We included five RCTs enrolling 390 patients. We found no statistically significant difference in short-term mortality (random effects, risk ratio [RR] 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06–1.51, p =.14, I2 = 0%) or hospital length of stay (LOS) (random effects, mean difference [MD]—1.31, 95% CI −3.66 to 1.05, p =.28, I2 = 0%) between acetate- versus lactate-buffered solutions. The quality of evidence was very low. Data regarding intensive care unit LOS were reported by three trials and duration of vasopressor treatment by one trial; none of these data allowed for pooling in meta-analyses. No trials reported data on long-term mortality, health-related quality of life, adverse events, duration of mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy. Conclusion: In this systematic review, we found very low quantity and quality of evidence on the use of acetate- versus lactate-buffered solutions in hospitalised patients.
KW - acetate
KW - crystalloid
KW - fluid therapy
KW - lactate
U2 - 10.1111/aas.14076
DO - 10.1111/aas.14076
M3 - Review
C2 - 35488485
AN - SCOPUS:85129741572
VL - 66
SP - 782
EP - 794
JO - Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
JF - Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
SN - 0001-5172
IS - 7
ER -
ID: 312623425