Background Intravenous fluids are used commonly for almost all intensive care unit (ICU) patients, especially for patients in need of resuscitation. The selection and use of resuscitation fluids may affect the outcomes of patients; however, the optimal resuscitative fluid remains controversial. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL. Studies comparing balanced crystalloids and normal saline in ICU patients were selected. We used the Cochrane Collaboration tool to assess the risk of bias in studies. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) and new renal replacement therapy (RRT). Results A total of 35,456 patients from eight studies were included. There was no significant difference between balanced crystalloid solutions and saline in mortality (risk ratio [RR]: 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.92–1.01). The subgroup analysis with traumatic brain injury (TBI) showed lower mortality in patients receiving normal saline (RR:1.25; 95% CI 1.02–1.54). However, in patients with non-TBI, balanced crystalloid solutions achieved lower mortality than normal saline (RR: 0.94; 95% CI 0.90–0.99). There was no significant difference in moderate to severe AKI (RR: 0.96; 95% CI 0.90–1.01) or new RRT (RR: 0.94; 95% CI 0.84–1.04). Conclusions Compared with normal saline, balanced crystalloids may not improve the outcomes of mortality, the incidence of AKI, and the use of RRT for critically ill patients. However, balanced crystalloids reduce the risk of death in patients with non-TBI but increase the risk of death in those with TBI. Large-scale rigorous randomized trials with better designs are needed, especially for specific patient populations.
ObjectiveTo demonstrate the therapeutic effect of vasopressin as an alternative treatment for cardiac arrest.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched for randomised controlled trials. The intervention included administration of vasopressin alone or vasopressin combined with epinephrine or vasopressin, steroids and epinephrine (VSE) versus epinephrine combined with placebo as control group. The primary outcome was the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). The secondary outcomes included mid-term survival and mid-term good neurological outcome. We conducted subgroup analyses of the primary outcome based on different settings, different study drug strategies and different types of initial rhythm.ResultsTwelve studies (n=6718) were included, of which eight trials (n=5638) reported the data on patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and four trials (n=1080) on patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). There were no significant differences between intravenous vasopressin and placebo in the outcomes of ROSC (relative risk (RR): 1.11; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.26), mid-term survival (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.66) and mid-term good neurological outcome (RR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.87). However, in the subgroup analysis, intravenous vasopressin as part of VSE can significantly improve the rate of ROSC (RR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.18 to 1.47) but not the rate of mid-term survival (RR: 2.15; 95% CI: 0.75 to 6.16) and mid-term good neurological outcome (RR: 1.80; 95% CI: 0.81 to 4.01) for patients with IHCA.ConclusionsOur study failed to demonstrate increased benefit from vasopressin with or without epinephrine compared with the standard of care. However, vasopressin as a part of VSE is associated with the improvement of ROSC in patients with IHCA, and the benefit on mid‐term survival or mid-term good neurological outcome is uncertain. Larger trials should be conducted in the future to address the effect of vasopressin only, vasopressin plus epinephrine or VSE on cardiac arrest.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021293347.
Background: Hypertension is a prevalent and costly health condition in China. Little is known about variation of the inpatient and outpatient expenditures attributable to hypertension between prefecture-level administrative regions (PARs) and the drivers of such variation among China’s middle-aged and elderly population. Methods: We obtain data from China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Survey between 2011 and 2015, panel tobit models were used in our study to estimate differences across 122 PARs. Expenditure variation was explained by the characteristics of individuals and regions, including measures of healthcare supply. Results: The cost of treatment for patients with hypertension varies greatly geographically, with the highest outpatient and inpatient costs being 77 and 102 times the lowest, respectively. After adjustment for the individual and PAR character, there are associations between expenditure and region bed density. Conclusion: There were significant regional differences in the outpatient and inpatient costs of middle-aged and elderly patients with hypertension in China, the difference between individuals may be an important reason, which has little to do with regional economic development differences, but is related to regional bed density.
BACKGROUND: For critically ill patients, physicians tend to administer sufficient or even excessive oxygen to maintain oxygen saturation at a high level. However, the credibility of the evidence for this practice is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of different oxygen therapy strategies on the outcomes of mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis conducted at Jiangxi Provin-
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.