Why physiology will continue to guide the choice between balanced crystalloids and normal saline: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Crystalloids are the most frequently prescribed drugs in intensive care medicine and emergency medicine. Thus, even small differences in outcome may have major implications, and therefore, the choice between balanced crystalloids versus normal saline continues to be debated. We examined to what extent the currently accrued information size from completed and ongoing trials on the subject allow intensivists and emergency physicians to choose the right fluid for their patients. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis with random effects inverse variance model. Published randomized controlled trials enrolling adult patients to compare balanced crystalloids versus normal saline in the setting of intensive care medicine or emergency medicine were included. The main outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up, and secondary outcomes were moderate to severe acute kidney injury (AKI) and initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT). Trial sequential analyses (TSA) were performed, and risk of bias and overall quality of evidence were assessed. Additionally, previously published meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses and ongoing large trials were analysed for included studies, required information size calculations and the assumptions underlying those calculations. RESULTS: Nine studies (n = 32,777) were included. Of those, eight had data available on mortality, seven on AKI and six on RRT. Meta-analysis showed no significant differences between balanced crystalloids versus normal saline for mortality (P = 0.33), the incidence of moderate to severe AKI (P = 0.37) or initiation of RRT (P = 0.29). Quality of evidence was low to very low. Analysis of previous meta-analyses and ongoing trials showed large differences in calculated required versus accrued information sizes and assumptions underlying those. TSA revealed the need for extremely large trials based on our realistic and clinically relevant assumptions on relative risk reduction and baseline mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis could not find significant differences between balanced crystalloids and normal saline on mortality at the longest follow-up, moderate to severe AKI or new RRT. Currently accrued information size is smaller, and the required information size is larger than previously anticipated. Therefore, completed and ongoing trials on the topic may fail to provide adequate guidance for choosing the right crystalloid. Thus, physiology will continue to play an important role for individualizing this choice.

Machine learning for the prediction of sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.

PURPOSE: Early clinical recognition of sepsis can be challenging. With the advancement of machine learning, promising real-time models to predict sepsis have emerged. We assessed their performance by carrying out a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase.com and Scopus. Studies targeting sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock in any hospital setting were eligible for inclusion. The index test was any supervised machine learning model for real-time prediction of these conditions. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, with a tailored Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist to evaluate risk of bias. Models with a reported area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) metric were meta-analyzed to identify strongest contributors to model performance. RESULTS: After screening, a total of 28 papers were eligible for synthesis, from which 130 models were extracted. The majority of papers were developed in the intensive care unit (ICU, n = 15; 54%), followed by hospital wards (n = 7; 25%), the emergency department (ED, n = 4; 14%) and all of these settings (n = 2; 7%). For the prediction of sepsis, diagnostic test accuracy assessed by the AUROC ranged from 0.68-0.99 in the ICU, to 0.96-0.98 in-hospital and 0.87 to 0.97 in the ED. Varying sepsis definitions limit pooling of the performance across studies. Only three papers clinically implemented models with mixed results. In the multivariate analysis, temperature, lab values, and model type contributed most to model performance. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis show that on retrospective data, individual machine learning models can accurately predict sepsis onset ahead of time. Although they present alternatives to traditional scoring systems, between-study heterogeneity limits the assessment of pooled results. Systematic reporting and clinical implementation studies are needed to bridge the gap between bytes and bedside.

Aortic stiffness and blood pressure variability in young people: a multimodality investigation of central and peripheral vasculature.

INTRODUCTION: Increased blood pressure (BP) variability is a cardiovascular risk marker for young individuals and may relate to the ability of their aorta to buffer cardiac output. We used a multimodality approach to determine relations between central and peripheral arterial stiffness and BP variability. METHODS: We studied 152 adults (mean age of 31 years) who had BP variability measures based on SD of awake ambulatory BPs, 24-h weighted SD and average real variability (ARV). Global and regional aortic distensibility was measured by cardiovascular magnetic resonance, arterial stiffness by cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI) and pulse wave velocity (PWV) by SphygmoCor (carotid-femoral) and Vicorder (brachial-femoral). RESULTS: In young people, free from overt cardiovascular disease, all indices of SBP and DBP variability correlated with aortic distensibility (global aortic distensibility versus awake SBP SD: r = -0.39, P < 0.001; SBP ARV: r = -0.34, P < 0.001; weighted 24-h SBP SD: r = -0.42, P < 0.001). CAVI, which closely associated with aortic distensibility, also related to DBP variability, as well as awake SBP SD (r = 0.19, P < 0.05) and weighted 24-h SBP SD (r = 0.24, P < 0.01), with a trend for SBP ARV (r = 0.17, P = 0.06). In contrast, associations with PWV were only between carotid-femoral PWV and weighted SD of SBP (r = 0.20, P = 0.03) as well as weighted and ARV of DBP. CONCLUSION: Greater BP variability in young people relates to increases in central aortic stiffness, strategies to measure and protect aortic function from a young age may be important to reduce cardiovascular risk.