Effectiveness and safety of hypotension fluid resuscitation in traumatic hemorrhagic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Abstract

BackgroundAlthough the resuscitation of an adult trauma patient has been researched and written about for the past century, the ideal fluid strategy to infuse during the initial resuscitation period remains unresolved. This work was aimed at assessing the effect of hypotensive versus conventional resuscitation strategies in traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients on mortality, and the need for blood transfusions including adverse events.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing the effect of hypotension versus conventional fluid resuscitation for traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients. Two reviewers independently performed the screening, data extraction, and bias assessment. The data analysis was completed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s software RevMan 5.4.ResultsData from 28 RCTs on 4503 patients were included in the final meta-analysis. Patients receiving hypotension fluid resuscitation compared with conventional fluid resuscitation experienced less mortality (12.5% vs. 21.4%; RR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.51–0.66; p < 0.001), fewer adverse events (10.8% vs. 13.4%; RR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.59–0.83; p < 0.001), including fever acute respiratory distress syndrome (7.8% vs. 16.8%) or multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (8.6% vs. 21.6%).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis showed that hypotensive fluid resuscitation significantly reduced the mortality of hypovolemic shock patients. Findings are low in certainty and should be interpreted with caution. Therefore, there is an urgent need for larger, multicenter, randomized trials to confirm these findings.