Ultrasound-guided fluid resuscitation versus usual care guided fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background Ultrasound is widely used in critical care for fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients. We conducted a systematic review to assess the relationship between ultrasound-guided fluid resuscitation strategies and usual care in septic shock. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and registers for randomized controlled trials to evaluate the prognosis of ultrasound-guided fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock. Results Twelve randomized controlled studies with 947 participants were included. Ultrasound-guided fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock was associated with reduced mortality (risk ratio: 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65 to 0.94; P = 0.007) and 24-hour fluid volume (mean differences [MD]: −1.02; 95% CI: −1.28 to −0.75; P < 0.001), low heterogeneity ( I 2 = 29%, I 2 = 0%), and increased dose of norepinephrine (MD: 0.07; 95% CI: 0.02–0.11; P = 0.002) and dobutamine dose (MD: 2.2; 95% CI: 0.35–4.04; P = 0.02), with low heterogeneity ( I 2 = 45%, I 2 = 0%). There was no reduction in the risk of dobutamine use (risk ratio: 1.67; 95% CI: 0.52 to 5.36; P = 0.39; I 2 = 0%). Inferior vena cava–related measures reduced the length of hospital stay (MD: −2.91; 95% CI: −5.2 to −0.62; P = 0.01; low heterogeneity, I 2 = 8%) and length of intensive care unit stay (MD: −2.77; 95% CI: −4.51 to −1.02; P = 0.002; low heterogeneity, I 2 = 0%). The use of the passive leg-raising test combined with echocardiography to assess fluid reactivity was superior. Ultrasound-guided fluid resuscitation did not significantly change the length of the free intensive care unit stay (MD: 1.5; 95% CI: −3.81 to 6.81; P = 0.58; I 2 = 0%). Conclusion Ultrasound-guided fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock is beneficial, especially when using inferior vena cava–related measures and the passive leg-raising test combined with echocardiography.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.