Use of Lactated Ringers Solution Compared With Normal Saline Is Associated With Shorter Length of Stay in Pediatric Acute Pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate lactated ringers (LR) versus normal saline (NS) in pediatric acute pancreatitis (AP). METHODS: This retrospective study used Pediatric Health Information System database of primary AP patients, 2013 to 2017. RESULTS: The study included 1581 first time AP patients with exclusive use of a single fluid (111 LR, 1470 NS) for the first 48 hours. The LR cohort had a significantly shorter length of stay (P < 0.001) compared with NS. A multivariable logistic regression analysis suggests use of NS in the first 48 hours (after controlling for total parenteral nutrition, operation, and infection during the admission) had a significantly increased likelihood of requiring a hospitalization for 4 days or more compared with the LR group (odds ratio, 3.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.95-5.62). The overall cost was significantly less in the LR group. There was no statistical difference observed in risk factors for AP, intensive care transfer, organ dysfunction, or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This represents the first large data set analysis of LR versus NS in pediatric AP. The use of LR was associated with a shorter length of stay and reduced cost compared with NS. Future randomized trials will help determine the ideal fluid choice for pediatric AP.

Randomised clinical trial: 2% taurolidine versus 0.9% saline locking in patients on home parenteral nutrition.

BACKGROUND: The catheter lock solutions 2% taurolidine and 0.9% saline are both used to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) in home parenteral nutrition patients. AIMS: To compare the effectiveness and safety of taurolidine and saline. METHODS: This multicentre double-blinded trial randomly assigned home parenteral nutrition patients to use either 2% taurolidine or 0.9% saline for 1 year. Patients were stratified in a new catheter group and a pre-existing catheter group. Primary outcome was the rate of CRBSIs/1000 catheter days in the new catheter group and pre-existing catheter group, separately. RESULTS: We randomised 105 patients, of which 102 were analysed as modified intention-to-treat population. In the new catheter group, rates of CRBSIs/1000 catheter days were 0.29 and 1.49 in the taurolidine and saline arm respectively (relative risk, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04-0.71; P = 0.009). In the pre-existing catheter group, rates of CRBSIs/1000 catheter days were 0.39 and 1.32 in the taurolidine and saline arm respectively (relative risk, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.03-1.82; P = 0.25). Excluding one outlier patient in the taurolidine arm, mean costs per patient were $1865 for taurolidine and $4454 for saline (P = 0.03). Drug-related adverse events were rare and generally mild. CONCLUSIONS: In the new catheter group, taurolidine showed a clear decrease in CRBSI rate. In the pre-existing catheter group, no superiority of taurolidine could be demonstrated, most likely due to underpowering. Overall, taurolidine reduced the risk for CRBSIs by more than four times. Given its favourable safety and cost profile, taurolidine locking should be considered as an additional strategy to prevent CRBSIs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT01826526.