Effects of balanced solution on short-term outcomes in traumatic brain injury patients: a secondary analysis of the BaSICS randomized trial

Comparison of the efficacy of 0.9% normal saline with balanced crystalloid (Plasmalyte) in maintaining the metabolic profile in head injury patients undergoing evacuation of acute subdural haematoma - A randomised controlled trial

Background and Aims

The choice of intravenous fluids is important in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), where large volumes may be required for resuscitation. Our study aimed to compare 0.9% normal saline (NS) with balanced crystalloid (Plasmalyte) in TBI patients in terms of metabolic and coagulation profile, brain relaxation score (BRS) and renal functions using serum urea, creatinine and urinary tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-2* insulin-like growth factor binding protein-7, [TIMP-2]*[IGFBP7], value to assess the risk of acute kidney injury.

Methods

This randomised controlled trial on 90 TBI patients undergoing emergency craniotomy and subdural haematoma evacuation was conducted in a tertiary care institute. The patients were randomised to receive either NS (Group NS) or Plasmalyte (Group P) as the intraoperative maintenance fluid. The primary outcome measures included the potential of hydrogen (pH), base excess (BE) and chloride values from an arterial blood gas. The secondary outcomes were the coagulation profile, BRS and urinary [TIMP-2]*[IGFBP7]. The two groups' metabolic profile differences were analysed using two-way repeated analysis of variance. BRS was analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test. A P value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

The pH and chloride values were significantly higher, and the BE values were significantly lower in Group P compared to Group NS (P < 0.001). Brain relaxation and coagulation profiles were comparable between the two groups. Serum creatinine (P = 0.002) and urinary [TIMP-2]*[IGFBP7] (P = 0.042) were significantly higher in the NS group.

Conclusion

Plasmalyte maintains a more favourable metabolic profile than NS in TBI patients without affecting brain relaxation adversely.

Intravenous maintenance fluid therapy in acutely and critically ill children: state of the evidence

Intravenous maintenance fluid therapy (IV-MFT) is one of the most prescribed, yet one of the least studied, interventions in paediatric acute and critical care settings. IV-MFT is not typically treated in the same way as drugs with specific indications, contraindications, compositions, and associated adverse effects. In the last decade, societies in both paediatric and adult medicine have issued evidence-based practice guidelines for the use of intravenous fluids in clinical practice. The main objective of this Viewpoint is to summarise and compare the rationales on which these international expert guidelines were based and how these recommendations affect IV-MFT practices in paediatric acute and critical care. Although these guidelines recommend the use of isotonic fluids as a standard in IV-MFT, some discrepancies and uncertainties remain regarding the systematic use of balanced fluids, glucose and electrolyte requirements, and appropriate fluid volume. IV-MFT should be considered in the same way as any other prescription drug and none of the components of IV-MFT prescription should be overlooked (ie, choice of drug, dosing rate, duration of treatment, and de-escalation). Furthermore, most evidence that was used to inform the guidelines comes from high-income countries. Although some principles of IV-MFT are universal, the direct relevance to and feasibility of implementing the guidelines in low-income and middle-income countries is uncertain.

Fluid Therapy for Critically Ill Adults With Sepsis: A Review

Importance

Approximately 20% to 30% of patients admitted to an intensive care unit have sepsis. While fluid therapy typically begins in the emergency department, intravenous fluids in the intensive care unit are an essential component of therapy for sepsis.

Observations

For patients with sepsis, intravenous fluid can increase cardiac output and blood pressure, maintain or increase intravascular fluid volume, and deliver medications. Fluid therapy can be conceptualized as 4 overlapping phases from early illness through resolution of sepsis: resuscitation (rapid fluid administered to restore perfusion); optimization (the risks and benefits of additional fluids to treat shock and ensure organ perfusion are evaluated); stabilization (fluid therapy is used only when there is a signal of fluid responsiveness); and evacuation (excess fluid accumulated during treatment of critical illness is eliminated). Among 3723 patients with sepsis who received 1 to 2 L of fluid, 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) reported that goal-directed therapy administering fluid boluses to attain a central venous pressure of 8 to 12 mm Hg, vasopressors to attain a mean arterial blood pressure of 65 to 90 mm Hg, and red blood cell transfusions or inotropes to attain a central venous oxygen saturation of at least 70% did not decrease mortality compared with unstructured clinical care (24.9% vs 25.4%; P = .68). Among 1563 patients with sepsis and hypotension who received 1 L of fluid, an RCT reported that favoring vasopressor treatment did not improve mortality compared with further fluid administration (14.0% vs 14.9%; P = .61). Another RCT reported that among 1554 patients in the intensive care unit with septic shock treated with at least 1 L of fluid compared with more liberal fluid administration, restricting fluid administration in the absence of severe hypoperfusion did not reduce mortality (42.3% vs 42.1%; P = .96). An RCT of 1000 patients with acute respiratory distress during the evacuation phase reported that limiting fluid administration and administering diuretics improved the number of days alive without mechanical ventilation compared with fluid treatment to attain higher intracardiac pressure (14.6 vs 12.1 days; P < .001), and it reported that hydroxyethyl starch significantly increased the incidence of kidney replacement therapy compared with saline (7.0% vs 5.8%; P = .04), Ringer lactate, or Ringer acetate.

Conclusions and Relevance

Fluids are an important component of treating patients who are critically ill with sepsis. Although optimal fluid management in patients with sepsis remains uncertain, clinicians should consider the risks and benefits of fluid administration in each phase of critical illness, avoid use of hydroxyethyl starch, and facilitate fluid removal for patients recovering from acute respiratory distress syndrome.