Article

Perioperative buffered versus non-buffered fluid administration for surgery in adults

Department of Anaesthesia, UCL Centre for Anaesthesia, 3rd floor Podium, University College Hospital, 235 Euston Road, London, UK, NW1 2BU.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 01/2012; 12(12):CD004089. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004089.pub2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Perioperative fluid therapy influences clinical outcomes following major surgery. Fluid preparations may be based on a simple non-buffered salt solution, such as normal saline, or may be modified with bicarbonate or bicarbonate precursor buffers, such as maleate, gluconate, lactate or acetate, to better reflect the human physiological state. These latter fluids have theoretical advantages over normal saline in preventing hyperchloraemic acidosis. A number of clinical studies have now compared fluid preparations with and without a buffer to achieve a balanced electrolyte solution for perioperative fluid resuscitation.
To review the safety and efficacy of perioperative administration of buffered versus non-buffered fluids for plasma volume expansion or maintenance in adult patients undergoing surgery.
We electronically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2011), EMBASE (1980 to May 2011), and CINAHL (1982 to May 2011). We handsearched conference abstracts and where possible, contacted leaders in the field.
We only included randomized trials of buffered versus non-buffered intravenous fluids for perioperative fluid resuscitation. The trials with other forms of comparisons such as crystalloids versus colloids and colloids versus different colloids were excluded. We also excluded trials using hypertonic fluids and dextrose-based fluids.
Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of clinical trials. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. We contacted the trial authors to provide additional information where appropriate. We presented pooled estimates of the dichotomous outcomes as odds ratios (OR) and on continuous outcomes as mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed data on Review Manager 5.1 using fixed-effect models, and when heterogeneity was high (I² > 40%) random-effect models were used.
We identified 14 publications reporting 13 trials or comparisons with a total of 706 participants. For many of the outcomes reported, there was significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity. The primary outcome of mortality at any time was reported in only three studies with a total of 267 patients. The mortality rate was 2.9% for the buffered fluids group and 1.5% for the non-buffered fluids group but this difference was not statistically significant. The Peto OR was 1.85 (95% CI 0.37 to 9.33, P = 0.45, I(2)= 0%). Organ dysfunction was only presented for renal impairment. There was no difference in renal insufficiency leading to renal replacement therapy between the buffered and non-buffered groups (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.63, P = 0.32, I(2) = 0%). Markers of organ system failure as assessed by urine output, creatinine and its variables (for renal function), PaC0(2) (respiratory function) and postoperative nausea and vomiting (gastro-intestinal function) showed a statistically significant difference only in PaC0(2) levels. The mean difference was 1.18 with lower PaC0(2) levels in the non-buffered fluid group (95% CI 0.09 to 2.28, P = 0.03, I(2) = 0%) compared to the buffered fluid group.There was no difference in intraoperative blood loss nor the volumes of intraoperative red cell or fresh frozen plasma transfused between groups. There was an increase in platelet transfusion in the non-buffered group which was statistically significant after analysing the transformed data (log transformation because the data were highly skewed).A number of metabolic differences were noted. There was a difference in postoperative pH of 0.06 units, lower in the non-buffered fluid group (95% CI 0.04 to 0.08, P < 0.00001, I(2) = 74%). However, this difference was not maintained on postoperative day one. The non-buffered fluid group also had significantly greater base deficit, serum sodium and chloride levels.There was no difference demonstrated in length of hospital stay and no data were reported on cost or quality of life.
The administration of buffered fluids to adult patients during surgery is equally safe and effective as the administration of non-buffered saline-based fluids. The use of buffered fluids is associated with less metabolic derangement, in particular hyperchloraemia and metabolic acidosis. Larger studies are needed to assess robust outcomes such as mortality.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Ahil Dushianthan, Jul 06, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
180 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The choice of fluid for resuscitation of the brain-injured patient remains controversial, and the 'ideal' resuscitation fluid has yet to be identified. Large volumes of hypotonic solutions must be avoided because of the risk of cerebral swelling and intracranial hypertension. Traditionally, 0.9% sodium chloride has been used in patients at risk of intracranial hypertension, but there is increasing recognition that 0.9% saline is not without its problems. Roquilly and colleagues show a reduction in the development of hyperchloremic acidosis in brain-injured patients given 'balanced' solutions for maintenance and resuscitation compared with 0.9% sodium chloride. In this commentary, we explore the idea that we should move away from 0.9% sodium chloride in favor of a more 'physiological' solution.
    Critical care (London, England) 06/2013; 17(3):150. DOI:10.1186/cc12732
  • Anesthesia and analgesia 08/2013; 117(2):290-1. DOI:10.1213/ANE.0b013e31828a73f1 · 3.42 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Fluid resuscitation is widely practiced in intensive care units for the treatment of sepsis. A comparison of the evidence base of different fluids may inform therapeutic choice. Methods: The risks of mortality and morbidity (the need for renal replacement therapies (RRT)) were assessed in patients with severe sepsis. A network meta-analysis compared trials for crystalloids, albumin and hydroxyethyl starch (HES). A literature search of human randomized clinical trials was conducted in databases, the bibliographies of other recent relevant systematic reviews and data reported at recent conferences. Mortality outcomes and RRT data with the longest follow up period were compared. A Bayesian network meta-analysis assessed the risk of mortality and a pair-wise meta-analysis assessed RRT using crystalloids as the reference treatment. Results: 13 studies were identified. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of mortality data in the trials demonstrated an odds-ratio (OR) of 0.90 between crystalloids and albumin, 1.25 between crystalloids and HES and 1.40 between albumin and HES. The probability that albumin is associated with the highest survival was 96.4% followed by crystalloid at 3.6%, with a negligible probability for HES. Sub-group analyses demonstrated the robustness of this result to variations in fluid composition, study source and origin of septic shock. A random-effects pairwise comparison for the risk of RRT provided an OR of 1.52 favoring crystalloid over HES. Conclusion: Fluid therapy with albumin was associated with the highest survival benefit. The higher morbidity with HES may affect mortality and requires consideration by prescribers.
    08/2013; 8(4). DOI:10.2174/15748863113089990046