The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Perioperative administration of buffered versus non-buffered crystalloid intravenous fluid to improve outcomes following adult surgical procedures: a Cochrane systematic review

Perioperative administration of buffered versus non-buffered crystalloid intravenous fluid to improve outcomes following adult surgical procedures: a Cochrane systematic review
Perioperative administration of buffered versus non-buffered crystalloid intravenous fluid to improve outcomes following adult surgical procedures: a Cochrane systematic review
Background: Buffered intravenous fluid preparations contain substrates to maintain acid-base status. The objective of this systematic review was to compare the effects of buffered and non-buffered fluids administered during the perioperative period on clinical and biochemical outcomes.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library until May 2017 and included all randomised controlled trials that evaluated buffered versus non-buffered fluids, whether crystalloid or colloid,
administered to surgical patients. We assessed the selected studies for risk of bias and graded the level of evidence in accordance with Cochrane recommendations.

Results: We identified 19 publications of 18 randomised controlled trials, totalling 1096 participants. Mean difference (MD) in postoperative pH was 0.05 units lower immediately following surgery in the non-buffered group (12 studies of 720 participants; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.07; I2 = 61%). This difference did not persist on postoperative day 1. Serum chloride concentration was higher in the non-buffered group at the end of surgery (10 trials of 530 participants; MD 6.77 mmol/L, 95% CI 3.38 to 10.17). This effect persisted until postoperative day 1 (5 trials of 258 participants; MD 8.48 mmol/L, 95% CI 1.08 to 15.88). Quality of this
evidence was moderate. We identified variable protocols for fluid administration and total volumes of fluid administered to patients intraoperatively. Outcome data was variably reported at disparate time points and with heterogeneous patient groups. Consequently, the effect size and overall confidence interval was reduced, despite the relatively low inherent risk of bias. There was insufficient evidence on the effect of fluid composition on mortality and organ dysfunction. Confidence intervals of this outcome were wide and the quality of evidence was low (3 trials of 276 participants for mortality; odds ratio (OR) 1.85, 95% CI 0.37 to 9.33; I2 = 0%).

Conclusions: Small effect sizes for biochemical outcomes and lack of correlated clinical follow-up data mean that robust conclusions on major morbidity and mortality associated with buffered versus non-buffered perioperative fluid choices are still lacking. Buffered fluid may have biochemical benefits, including a significant reduction in postoperative hyperchloraemia and metabolic acidosis.

Keywords: Fluid therapy, Plasma substitutes, Surgery
2047-0525
1-13
Odor, Peter
3e674440-a8ad-4321-8197-d6813a69c7da
Bampoe, Sohail
edf2e763-1a6a-474b-9534-6d2c982735ed
Dushianthan, Ahilanandan
f4d6308b-91ae-4073-a18d-288db1f70893
Bennett-Guerrero, Elliott
3f44ce58-1797-490c-9427-a7f32a3bfe12
Cro, Suzie
91cff2a5-2b48-4434-964d-5b39cc49d462
Gan, Tong J.
ad5f1f1b-58ee-45c0-a5bc-c4dafb874b69
Grocott, Michael P.W.
1e87b741-513e-4a22-be13-0f7bb344e8c2
James, Michael F.M.
d49f0a03-ea14-4944-8c70-a574b57153fa
Mythen, Michael G.
940f5be7-e5bc-4a90-94aa-09fdc658caad
O'Malley, Catherine M.N.
c7f8e555-ef52-41fb-815b-0459a3d08f81
Roche, Anthony M.
36f27eeb-6cc7-401a-923e-937af6163af8
Rowan, Kathy
8070069a-f438-47a6-8194-54d6c3e652bf
Burdett, Edward
bb94148d-d99b-4614-95e1-33d431496629
Odor, Peter
3e674440-a8ad-4321-8197-d6813a69c7da
Bampoe, Sohail
edf2e763-1a6a-474b-9534-6d2c982735ed
Dushianthan, Ahilanandan
f4d6308b-91ae-4073-a18d-288db1f70893
Bennett-Guerrero, Elliott
3f44ce58-1797-490c-9427-a7f32a3bfe12
Cro, Suzie
91cff2a5-2b48-4434-964d-5b39cc49d462
Gan, Tong J.
ad5f1f1b-58ee-45c0-a5bc-c4dafb874b69
Grocott, Michael P.W.
1e87b741-513e-4a22-be13-0f7bb344e8c2
James, Michael F.M.
d49f0a03-ea14-4944-8c70-a574b57153fa
Mythen, Michael G.
940f5be7-e5bc-4a90-94aa-09fdc658caad
O'Malley, Catherine M.N.
c7f8e555-ef52-41fb-815b-0459a3d08f81
Roche, Anthony M.
36f27eeb-6cc7-401a-923e-937af6163af8
Rowan, Kathy
8070069a-f438-47a6-8194-54d6c3e652bf
Burdett, Edward
bb94148d-d99b-4614-95e1-33d431496629

Odor, Peter, Bampoe, Sohail, Dushianthan, Ahilanandan, Bennett-Guerrero, Elliott, Cro, Suzie, Gan, Tong J., Grocott, Michael P.W., James, Michael F.M., Mythen, Michael G., O'Malley, Catherine M.N., Roche, Anthony M., Rowan, Kathy and Burdett, Edward (2018) Perioperative administration of buffered versus non-buffered crystalloid intravenous fluid to improve outcomes following adult surgical procedures: a Cochrane systematic review. Perioperative Medicine, 7 (27), 1-13. (doi:10.1186/s13741-018-0108-5).

Record type: Review

Abstract

Background: Buffered intravenous fluid preparations contain substrates to maintain acid-base status. The objective of this systematic review was to compare the effects of buffered and non-buffered fluids administered during the perioperative period on clinical and biochemical outcomes.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library until May 2017 and included all randomised controlled trials that evaluated buffered versus non-buffered fluids, whether crystalloid or colloid,
administered to surgical patients. We assessed the selected studies for risk of bias and graded the level of evidence in accordance with Cochrane recommendations.

Results: We identified 19 publications of 18 randomised controlled trials, totalling 1096 participants. Mean difference (MD) in postoperative pH was 0.05 units lower immediately following surgery in the non-buffered group (12 studies of 720 participants; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.07; I2 = 61%). This difference did not persist on postoperative day 1. Serum chloride concentration was higher in the non-buffered group at the end of surgery (10 trials of 530 participants; MD 6.77 mmol/L, 95% CI 3.38 to 10.17). This effect persisted until postoperative day 1 (5 trials of 258 participants; MD 8.48 mmol/L, 95% CI 1.08 to 15.88). Quality of this
evidence was moderate. We identified variable protocols for fluid administration and total volumes of fluid administered to patients intraoperatively. Outcome data was variably reported at disparate time points and with heterogeneous patient groups. Consequently, the effect size and overall confidence interval was reduced, despite the relatively low inherent risk of bias. There was insufficient evidence on the effect of fluid composition on mortality and organ dysfunction. Confidence intervals of this outcome were wide and the quality of evidence was low (3 trials of 276 participants for mortality; odds ratio (OR) 1.85, 95% CI 0.37 to 9.33; I2 = 0%).

Conclusions: Small effect sizes for biochemical outcomes and lack of correlated clinical follow-up data mean that robust conclusions on major morbidity and mortality associated with buffered versus non-buffered perioperative fluid choices are still lacking. Buffered fluid may have biochemical benefits, including a significant reduction in postoperative hyperchloraemia and metabolic acidosis.

Keywords: Fluid therapy, Plasma substitutes, Surgery

Text
Odor Perioperative Medicine 2018 Perioperative buffered vs. non buffered intravenous fluids - Cochrane SR - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (1MB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 14 October 2018
e-pub ahead of print date: 13 December 2018
Published date: 13 December 2018

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 428000
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/428000
ISSN: 2047-0525
PURE UUID: 157ff91d-9fe6-4f0f-b978-f33c9f8ace7a
ORCID for Michael P.W. Grocott: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-9484-7581

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 06 Feb 2019 17:30
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 04:00

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Peter Odor
Author: Sohail Bampoe
Author: Ahilanandan Dushianthan
Author: Elliott Bennett-Guerrero
Author: Suzie Cro
Author: Tong J. Gan
Author: Michael F.M. James
Author: Michael G. Mythen
Author: Catherine M.N. O'Malley
Author: Anthony M. Roche
Author: Kathy Rowan
Author: Edward Burdett

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×