Search

Objective: There is a widespread use of buffered crystalloid solutions in clinical practice. However, guidelines do not distinguish between specific types of buffered solutions and clinical equipoise exists. We aimed to assess the desirable and undesirable effects of acetate- versus lactate-buffered solutions in hospitalised patients., Methods: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials assessing the use of acetate- versus lactate-buffered solutions for intravenous administration in hospitalised adults and children. The primary outcome was all-cause short-term mortality. We adhered to our published protocol, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, the Cochrane Handbook and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology., Results: We included five RCTs enrolling 390 patients. We found no statistically significant difference in short-term mortality (random effects, risk ratio [RR] 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06-1.51, p = .14, I 2  = 0%) or hospital length of stay (LOS) (random effects, mean difference [MD]-1.31, 95% CI -3.66 to 1.05, p = .28, I 2  = 0%) between acetate- versus lactate-buffered solutions. The quality of evidence was very low. Data regarding intensive care unit LOS were reported by three trials and duration of vasopressor treatment by one trial; none of these data allowed for pooling in meta-analyses. No trials reported data on long-term mortality, health-related quality of life, adverse events, duration of mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy., Conclusion: In this systematic review, we found very low quantity and quality of evidence on the use of acetate- versus lactate-buffered solutions in hospitalised patients., (© 2022 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Background: Intravenous (IV) fluid therapy has become a ubiquitous intervention in everyday clinical practice. Several types of fluid are available including isotonic crystalloid fluids. Among crystalloid fluids, buffered solutions (derivatives of the original Hartmann's and Ringer's solutions) are increasingly recommended as first-line resuscitation fluids. However, the choice between different buffered solutions appears to be difficult with limited data to support the use of lactate vs. acetate buffered solutions. Accordingly, we aim at systematically describing the body of evidence on the use of the different types of buffered crystalloid solutions in hospitalised patients., Methods: We will conduct a scoping review of all study designs (i.e. no study design will per se be excluded from the proposed review) in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) statement., Results: We will provide descriptive analysis of the included studies/trials, i.e. no meta-analyses will be conducted. We will include studies on adult hospitalised patients receiving IV fluid for any reason. Studies must compare any crystalloid solution primarily buffered with lactate versus any primarily acetate buffered solution. All outcome measures will be reported. The quality of evidence will be assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach., Conclusion: This outlined scoping review will provide a summary of the current body of evidence on the use, effects and side-effects of buffered crystalloid solutions. This will provide an important update of the current evidence on the use, of "buffered" crystalloid solutions including evidence of potential benefits and harms., (© 2019 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)