Effectiveness of Colonic Fluid Resuscitation in a Burn-Injured Swine

Efficacy and safety of early enteral and intravenous fluid resuscitation in severe acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of enteral fluid resuscitation (via nasointestinal tube or colorectal tube) and intravenous fluid resuscitation (via intravenous route) in the early treatment of severe acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

In this study, 8 electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, China HowNet database, Wanfang database, and VIP database) were searched to collect clinical studies from inception to June 12, 2022. After the quality evaluation and data extraction of the included studies, the RevMan 5.3 software was used for analysis.

RESULTS

A total of seven studies including 580 patients were studied in this meta-analysis, in which 291 cases were treated with enteral fluid resuscitation and 289 cases were treated with intravenous fluid resuscitation. Compared with the intravenous route group, the enteral route resuscitation group reduced the incidence of new organ failure (OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.12-0.43, P < 0.00001), the incidence of persistent organ failure (OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.22-0.64, P = 0.0003), the incidence of mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.03-0.69, P = 0.01), the incidence of ICU care (OR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.27-0.88, P = 0.02), and the incidence of pancreatic infection (OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.17-0.83, P = 0.02). There were no statistically significant differences in mortality (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.35-1.66, P = 0.50), surgical intervention rate (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.19-1.18, P = 0.11), and incidence of localized ascites (OR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.25-1.73, P = 0.39).

CONCLUSION

Early enteral fluid resuscitation is safe and effective for in severe pancreatitis. But this conclusion needs to be verified by more additional multi-centre randomized controlled trials with large samples.

An Assessment of Research Priorities to Dampen the Pendulum Swing of Burn Resuscitation

On June 17 to 18, 2019, the American Burn Association, in conjunction with Underwriters Laboratories, convened a group of experts on burn resuscitation in Washington, DC. The goal of the meeting was to identify and discuss novel research and strategies to optimize the process of burn resuscitation. Patients who sustain a large thermal injury (involving >20% of the total body surface area [TBSA]) face a sequence of challenges, beginning with burn shock. Over the last century, research has helped elucidate much of the underlying pathophysiology of burn shock, which places multiple organ systems at risk of damage or dysfunction. These studies advanced the understanding of the need for fluids for resuscitation. The resultant practice of judicious and timely infusion of crystalloids has improved mortality after major thermal injury. However, much remains unclear about how to further improve and customize resuscitation practice to limit the morbidities associated with edema and volume overload. Herein, we review the history and pathophysiology of shock following thermal injury, and propose some of the priorities for resuscitation research. Recommendations include: studying the utility of alternative endpoints to resuscitation, reexamining plasma as a primary or adjunctive resuscitation fluid, and applying information about inflammation and endotheliopathy to target the underlying causes of burn shock. Undoubtedly, these future research efforts will require a concerted effort from the burn and research communities.