0
selected
-
1.
Simultaneous Use of Hypertonic Saline and IV Furosemide for Fluid Overload: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Liu, C, Peng, Z, Gao, X, Gajic, O, Dong, Y, Prokop, LJ, Murad, MH, Kashani, KB, Domecq, JP
Critical care medicine. 2021;(11):e1163-e1175
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate the efficacy of the simultaneous hypertonic saline solution and IV furosemide (HSS+Fx) for patients with fluid overload compared with IV furosemide alone (Fx). DATA SOURCES Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, Scopus, and WOS) were searched from inception to March 2020. STUDY SELECTION Randomized controlled trials on the use of HSS+Fx in adult patients with fluid overload versus Fx were included. DATA EXTRACTION Data were collected on all-cause mortality, hospital length of stay, heart failure-related readmission, along with inpatient weight loss, change of daily diuresis, serum creatinine, and 24-hour urine sodium excretion from prior to post intervention. Pooled analysis with random effects models yielded relative risk or mean difference with 95% CIs. DATA SYNTHESIS Eleven randomized controlled trials comprising 2,987 acute decompensated heart failure patients were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated that HSS+Fx was associated with lower all-cause mortality (relative risk, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.46-0.67; p < 0.05; I2 = 12%) and heart failure-related readmissions (relative risk, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33-0.76; p < 0.05; I2 = 61%), shorter hospital length of stay (mean difference, -3.28 d; 95% CI, -4.14 to -2.43; p < 0.05; I2 = 93%), increased daily diuresis (mean difference, 583.87 mL; 95% CI, 504.92-662.81; p < 0.05; I2 = 76%), weight loss (mean difference, -1.76 kg; 95% CI, -2.52 to -1.00; p < 0.05; I2 = 57%), serum sodium change (mean difference, 6.89 mEq/L; 95% CI, 4.98-8.79; p < 0.05; I2 = 95%), and higher 24-hour urine sodium excretion (mean difference, 61.10 mEq; 95% CI, 51.47-70.73; p < 0.05; I2 = 95%), along with decreased serum creatinine (mean difference, -0.46 mg/dL; 95% CI, -0.51 to -0.41; p < 0.05; I2 = 89%) when compared with Fx. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate. CONCLUSIONS Benefits of the HSS+Fx over Fx were observed across all examined outcomes in acute decompensated heart failure patients with fluid overload. There is at least moderate certainty that HSS+Fx is associated with a reduction in mortality in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. Factors associated with a successful HSS+Fx utilization are still unknown. Current evidence cannot be extrapolated to other than fluid overload states in acute decompensated heart failure.
-
2.
Hypertonic saline versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents for people with acute traumatic brain injury.
Chen, H, Song, Z, Dennis, JA
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2020;(1):CD010904
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Increased intracranial pressure has been shown to be strongly associated with poor neurological outcomes and mortality for patients with acute traumatic brain injury. Currently, most efforts to treat these injuries focus on controlling the intracranial pressure. Hypertonic saline is a hyperosmolar therapy that is used in traumatic brain injury to reduce intracranial pressure. The effectiveness of hypertonic saline compared with other intracranial pressure-lowering agents in the management of acute traumatic brain injury is still debated, both in the short and the long term. OBJECTIVES To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of hypertonic saline versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents in the management of acute traumatic brain injury. SEARCH METHODS We searched Cochrane Injuries' Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase Classic+Embase, ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, as well as trials registers, on 11 December 2019. We supplemented these searches with searches of four major Chinese databases on 19 September 2018. We also checked bibliographies, and contacted trial authors to identify additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA We sought to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of hypertonic saline versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents for people with acute traumatic brain injury of any severity. We excluded cross-over trials as incompatible with assessing long-term outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened search results to identify potentially eligible trials and extracted data using a standard data extraction form. Outcome measures included: mortality at end of follow-up (all-cause); death or disability (as measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS)); uncontrolled intracranial pressure (defined as failure to decrease the intracranial pressure to target and/or requiring additional intervention); and adverse events e.g. rebound phenomena; pulmonary oedema; acute renal failure during treatment). MAIN RESULTS Six trials, involving data from 287 people, met the inclusion criteria. The majority of participants (91%) had a diagnosis of severe traumatic brain injury. We had concerns about particular domains of risk of bias in each trial, as physicians were not reliably blinded to allocation, two trials contained participants with conditions other than traumatic brain injury and in one trial, we had concerns about missing data for important outcomes. The original protocol was available for only one trial and other trials (where registered) were registered retrospectively. Meta-analysis for both the primary outcome (mortality at final follow-up) and for 'poor outcome' as per conventionally dichotomised GOS criteria, was only possible for two trials. Synthesis of long-term outcomes was inhibited by the fact that two trials ceased data collection within two hours of a single bolus dose of an intracranial pressure-lowering agent and one at discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU). Only three trials collected data after participants were released from hospital, one of which did not report mortality and reported a 'poor outcome' by GOS criteria in an unconventional way. Substantial missing data in a key trial meant that in meta-analysis we report 'best-case' and 'worst-case' estimates alongside available case analysis. In no scenario did we discern a clear difference between treatments for either mortality or poor neurological outcome. Due to variation in modes of drug administration (including whether it followed or did not follow cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage, as well as different follow-up times and ways of reporting changes in intracranial pressure, as well as no uniform definition of 'uncontrolled intracranial pressure', we did not perform meta-analysis for this outcome and report results narratively, by individual trial. Trials tended to report both treatments to be effective in reducing elevated intracranial pressure but that hypertonic saline had increased benefits, usually adding that pretreatment factors need to be considered (e.g. serum sodium and both system and brain haemodynamics). No trial provided data for our other outcomes of interest. We consider evidence quality for all outcomes to be very low, as assessed by GRADE; we downgraded all conclusions due to imprecision (small sample size), indirectness (due to choice of measurement and/or selection of participants without traumatic brain injury), and in some cases, risk of bias and inconsistency. Only one of the included trials reported data on adverse effects; a rebound phenomenon, which was present only in the comparator group (mannitol). None of the trials reported data on pulmonary oedema or acute renal failure during treatment. On the whole, trial authors do not seem to have rigorously sought to collect data on adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This review set out to find trials comparing hypertonic saline to a potential range of other intracranial pressure-lowering agents, but only identified trials comparing it with mannitol or mannitol in combination with glycerol. Based on limited data, there is weak evidence to suggest that hypertonic saline is no better than mannitol in efficacy and safety in the long-term management of acute traumatic brain injury. Future research should be comprised of large, multi-site trials, prospectively registered, reported in accordance with current best practice. Trials should investigate issues such as the type of traumatic brain injury suffered by participants and concentration of infusion and length of time over which the infusion is given.
-
3.
Hypertonic saline versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents for people with acute traumatic brain injury.
Chen, H, Song, Z, Dennis, JA
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2019;(12):CD010904
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Increased intracranial pressure (ICP) has been shown to be strongly associated with poor neurological outcomes and mortality for patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). Currently, most efforts to treat these injuries focus on controlling the ICP. Hypertonic saline (HTS) is a hyperosmolar therapy that is used in traumatic brain injury to reduce intracranial pressure. The effectiveness of HTS compared with other ICP-lowering agents in the management of acute TBI is still debated, both in the short and the long term. OBJECTIVES To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of hypertonic saline versus other ICP-lowering agents in the management of acute TBI. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase Classic+Embase (OvidSP), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, as well as trials registers, on 11 December 2019. We supplemented these searches using four major Chinese databases on 19 September 2018. We also checked bibliographies, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We sought to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of HTS versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents for people with acute TBI of any severity. We excluded cross-over trials as incompatible with assessing long term outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened search results to identify potentially eligible trials and extracted data using a standard data extraction form. Outcome measures included: mortality at end of follow-up (all-cause); death or disability (as measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS)); uncontrolled ICP (defined as failure to decrease the ICP to target and/or requiring additional intervention); and adverse events (AEs) (e.g. rebound phenomena; pulmonary oedema; acute renal failure during treatment). MAIN RESULTS Six trials, involving data from 295 people, met the inclusion criteria. The majority of participants (89%) had a diagnosis of severe TBI. We had concerns about particular domains of risk of bias in each trial, as physicians were not reliably blinded to allocation, two trials contained participants with conditions other than TBI and in one trial, there were concerns about missing data for important outcomes. The original protocol was available for only one study and other trials (where registered) were registered retrospectively. Meta-analysis for both the primary outcome (mortality at final follow up) and for 'poor outcome' as per conventionally dichotomised GOS criteria, was only possible for two studies. Synthesis of long-term outcomes was inhibited by the fact that two ceased data collection within two hours of a single bolus dose of an ICP-lowering agent and one at discharge from ICU. Only three studies collected data after release from hospital. Due to variation in modes of drug administration, follow-up times, and ways of reporting changes in ICP, as well as no uniform definition of 'uncontrolled ICP', we did not perform meta-analysis for this outcome and report results narratively, by individual trial. Trials tended to report both treatments to be effective in reducing elevated ICP but that HTS had increased benefits, usually adding that pretreatment factors need to be considered (e.g. serum sodium and both system and brain hemodynamics). No trial provided data for our other outcomes of interest. Evidence for all outcomes is considered very low, as assessed by GRADE. All conclusions were downgraded due to imprecision (small sample size), indirectness (due to choice of measurement and/or selection of patients without TBI), and in some cases, risk of bias and inconsistency. Only one of the included trials reported data on adverse effects (AEs) - a rebound phenomenon, which was present only in the comparator group (mannitol). No data were reported on pulmonary oedema or acute renal failure during treatment. On the whole, investigators do not seem to have rigorously sought to collect data on AEs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This review set out to find trials comparing HTS to a potential range of other ICP-lowering agents, but only identified trials comparing it with mannitol or mannitol in combination with glycerol. Based on limited data, there is weak evidence to suggest that HTS is no better than mannitol in efficacy and safety in the long-term management of acute TBI. Future research should be comprised of large, multi-site trials, prospectively registered, reported in accordance with current best practice. Issues such as the type of TBI suffered by participants and concentration of infusion and length of time over which the infusion is given should be investigated.
-
4.
Hypertonic saline with furosemide for the treatment of acute congestive heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Gandhi, S, Mosleh, W, Myers, RB
International journal of cardiology. 2014;(2):139-45
Abstract
BACKGROUND Advanced congestive heart failure (CHF) therapies include intravenous inotropic agents, change in class of diuretics, and venous ultrafiltration or hemodialysis. These modalities have not been associated with improved prognosis and are limited by availability and cost. Compared to high-dose furosemide alone, concomitant hypertonic saline solution (HSS) administration has demonstrated improved clinical outcomes with good safety profile. METHODS A literature search was conducted for randomized controlled trials that investigated the use of HSS in patients admitted to hospital with acute CHF. RESULTS 1032 patients treated with HSS and 1032 controls, demonstrated decreased all-cause mortality in patients treat with HSS with RR of 0.56 (95% CI 0.41-0.76,p=0.0003). 1012 patients treated with HSS and 1020 controls, demonstrated decreased heart failure hospital readmission with RR of 0.50 (95% CI 0.33-0.76,p=0.001). Patients treated with HSS also demonstrated decreased hospital length of stay (p=0.0002), greater weight loss (p<0.00001), and preservation of renal function (p<0.00001). CONCLUSION The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that in patients with advanced CHF concomitant hypertonic saline administration improved weight loss, preserved renal function, and decreased length of hospitalization, mortality and heart failure rehospitalization. A future adequately powered, multi-centre, placebo controlled, randomized, double dummy, blinded trial is needed to assess the benefit of hypertonic saline in patients with renal dysfunction, in diverse patient populations, as well using a patient population on optimal current heart failure treatment. Pending further validation, there is promise for hypertonic saline as an advanced therapy for the management of acute advanced CHF.
-
5.
Hypertonic saline versus mannitol for the treatment of elevated intracranial pressure: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Kamel, H, Navi, BB, Nakagawa, K, Hemphill, JC, Ko, NU
Critical care medicine. 2011;(3):554-9
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Randomized trials have suggested that hypertonic saline solutions may be superior to mannitol for the treatment of elevated intracranial pressure, but their impact on clinical practice has been limited, partly by their small size. We therefore combined their findings in a meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES We searched for relevant studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge. STUDY SELECTION Randomized trials were included if they directly compared equiosmolar doses of hypertonic sodium solutions to mannitol for the treatment of elevated intracranial pressure in human subjects undergoing quantitative intracranial pressure measurement. DATA EXTRACTION Two investigators independently reviewed potentially eligible trials and extracted data using a preformed data collection sheet. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or by a third investigator if needed. We collected data on patient demographics, type of intracranial pathology, baseline intracranial pressure, osms per treatment dose, quantitative change in intracranial pressure, and prespecified adverse events. Our primary outcome was the proportion of successfully treated episodes of elevated intracranial pressure. DATA SYNTHESIS Five trials comprising 112 patients with 184 episodes of elevated intracranial pressure met our inclusion criteria. In random-effects models, the relative risk of intracranial pressure control was 1.16 (95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.33), and the difference in mean intracranial pressure reduction was 2.0 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -1.6 to 5.7), with both favoring hypertonic saline over mannitol. A mild degree of heterogeneity was present among the included trials. There were no significant adverse events reported. CONCLUSIONS We found that hypertonic saline is more effective than mannitol for the treatment of elevated intracranial pressure. Our meta-analysis is limited by the small number and size of eligible trials, but our findings suggest that hypertonic saline may be superior to the current standard of care and argue for a large, multicenter, randomized trial to definitively establish the first-line medical therapy for intracranial hypertension.