We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Different Concentrations of Albumin Versus Crystalloid in Patients with Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2023 August
OBJECTIVE: The best type of resuscitation fluids for sepsis and septic shock patients remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of different concentrations of albumin on reducing the mortality rate of theses patients by meta-analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were used for screening the relevant studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible if they compared the effects of albumin with crystalloid on mortality in patients with sepsis and septic shock. Data were examined and extracted by two reviewers independently. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus with or without the help from a third reviewer. Data including mortality, sample size of the patients, and resuscitation endpoints were extracted. Meta-analysis was carried based on the corresponding odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Eight studies with a total of 5124 septic patients and 3482 septic shock patients were included in this study. Compared with crystalloid, the use of albumin may represent a trend toward reduced the 90-day mortality of septic patients (OR 0.91 [0.80, 1.02]; P = .11) and significantly improved the outcome of septic shock patients (OR 0.85 [0.74, 0.99]; P = .04). Further analysis showed a potentially beneficial role of both 4% to 5% and 20% albumin on reducing the mortality of septic patients. The use of 20% albumin significantly decreased the 90-day mortality of septic shock patients (OR 0.81 [0.67, 0.98]; P = .03), which was better than 4% to 5% albumin and crystalloid.
CONCLUSIONS: Albumin treatment, particularly 20% albumin, significantly reduced the 90-day mortality in septic shock patients. Both 4% to 5% and 20% of albumin may work better than crystalloid in improving the survival rate of patients with sepsis, but more relative RCTs are required for validation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were used for screening the relevant studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible if they compared the effects of albumin with crystalloid on mortality in patients with sepsis and septic shock. Data were examined and extracted by two reviewers independently. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus with or without the help from a third reviewer. Data including mortality, sample size of the patients, and resuscitation endpoints were extracted. Meta-analysis was carried based on the corresponding odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Eight studies with a total of 5124 septic patients and 3482 septic shock patients were included in this study. Compared with crystalloid, the use of albumin may represent a trend toward reduced the 90-day mortality of septic patients (OR 0.91 [0.80, 1.02]; P = .11) and significantly improved the outcome of septic shock patients (OR 0.85 [0.74, 0.99]; P = .04). Further analysis showed a potentially beneficial role of both 4% to 5% and 20% albumin on reducing the mortality of septic patients. The use of 20% albumin significantly decreased the 90-day mortality of septic shock patients (OR 0.81 [0.67, 0.98]; P = .03), which was better than 4% to 5% albumin and crystalloid.
CONCLUSIONS: Albumin treatment, particularly 20% albumin, significantly reduced the 90-day mortality in septic shock patients. Both 4% to 5% and 20% of albumin may work better than crystalloid in improving the survival rate of patients with sepsis, but more relative RCTs are required for validation.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app