This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Original research
Shu-Guang Zhu
The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangdong Pharmaceutical University
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
There is still an ongoing battle against the Permissive Hypotension (PH) through Conventional Resuscitation Strategies (CR). Active fluid resuscitation in patients with traumatic shock can bring many problems, as it is known that standard high-volume resuscitation can exacerbate the lethal triad of acidemia, hypothermia, and coagulopathy. As a part of damage control resuscitation strategy, it can reduce mortality and shorten hospital stay, compared with the use of standard liquids. Moreover, its application is gradually receiving wider attention (1) . This review evaluated the effectiveness and safety of permissive hypotension resuscitation in adult patients with traumatic hemorrhagic shock.
Methods
The systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the beginning to March 2021 to compare the therapeutic effects of controlled fluid resuscitation and conventional fluid resuscitation on patients with traumatic hemorrhagic shock. Two reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction and bias assessment. Data analysis was performed using Cochrane Collaboration Software Revman 5.2. The primary outcome was 30-day or in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included blood routine index, coagulation function, resuscitation fluid use, complications, and length of hospital stay. Pooling was performed with a random-effects model.
Results
8 randomized controlled trials were screened out of 898 studies and 1593 patients were evaluated. The target blood pressure of the intervention group ranged from 50-90 mmHg in systolic pressure or mean arterial pressure ≥ 50 mmHg, while that of the control group was 65-110 mmHg systolic pressure or mean arterial pressure ≥ 60 mmHg. Only patients with penetrating injuries were evaluated in two studies, while the remaining six included blunt injuries. A statistically significant reduction in mortality was observed in the intervention group (RR = 0.70; 95%CI= 0.58-0.84; P < 0.05). Small heterogeneity was observed in the included articles (χ2 = 8.9; P = 0.18; I2 = 33%). The loss of platelet (PLT), hemoglobin (Hb) and body fluid was properly protected, the amount of resuscitation fluid was reduced, and the incidence of some adverse events was effectively reduced. There was no significant difference in coagulation time and hospital stay between the two groups.
Conclusions
This meta-analysis reveals the survival benefits of hypotension resuscitation in patients with traumatic hemorrhagic shock. The significant advantage is to promote the recovery of patients' physical function and reduce the incidence of treatment-related complications such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), acute kidney injury (AKI) and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), which reduces the mortality. Convincing evidences are provided based on these results, but larger, multicenter, randomized trials are needed to confirm the findings.
Keywords
Permissive Hypotension, Traumatic hemorrhagic shock, Meta-analysis
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 13 Apr, 2021
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Cardiothoracic Surgery
Learn more about our company.
This is a preprint. It has not completed peer review.
Original research
Shu-Guang Zhu
The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangdong Pharmaceutical University
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 13 Apr, 2021
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Cardiothoracic Surgery
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
There is still an ongoing battle against the Permissive Hypotension (PH) through Conventional Resuscitation Strategies (CR). Active fluid resuscitation in patients with traumatic shock can bring many problems, as it is known that standard high-volume resuscitation can exacerbate the lethal triad of acidemia, hypothermia, and coagulopathy. As a part of damage control resuscitation strategy, it can reduce mortality and shorten hospital stay, compared with the use of standard liquids. Moreover, its application is gradually receiving wider attention (1) . This review evaluated the effectiveness and safety of permissive hypotension resuscitation in adult patients with traumatic hemorrhagic shock.
Methods
The systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the beginning to March 2021 to compare the therapeutic effects of controlled fluid resuscitation and conventional fluid resuscitation on patients with traumatic hemorrhagic shock. Two reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction and bias assessment. Data analysis was performed using Cochrane Collaboration Software Revman 5.2. The primary outcome was 30-day or in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included blood routine index, coagulation function, resuscitation fluid use, complications, and length of hospital stay. Pooling was performed with a random-effects model.
Results
8 randomized controlled trials were screened out of 898 studies and 1593 patients were evaluated. The target blood pressure of the intervention group ranged from 50-90 mmHg in systolic pressure or mean arterial pressure ≥ 50 mmHg, while that of the control group was 65-110 mmHg systolic pressure or mean arterial pressure ≥ 60 mmHg. Only patients with penetrating injuries were evaluated in two studies, while the remaining six included blunt injuries. A statistically significant reduction in mortality was observed in the intervention group (RR = 0.70; 95%CI= 0.58-0.84; P < 0.05). Small heterogeneity was observed in the included articles (χ2 = 8.9; P = 0.18; I2 = 33%). The loss of platelet (PLT), hemoglobin (Hb) and body fluid was properly protected, the amount of resuscitation fluid was reduced, and the incidence of some adverse events was effectively reduced. There was no significant difference in coagulation time and hospital stay between the two groups.
Conclusions
This meta-analysis reveals the survival benefits of hypotension resuscitation in patients with traumatic hemorrhagic shock. The significant advantage is to promote the recovery of patients' physical function and reduce the incidence of treatment-related complications such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), acute kidney injury (AKI) and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), which reduces the mortality. Convincing evidences are provided based on these results, but larger, multicenter, randomized trials are needed to confirm the findings.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Loading...