RESTRICTIVE FLUID RESUSCITATION IN SEPTIC SHOCK PATIENTS HAS LOWER MORTALITY AND ORGAN DYSFUNCTION RATES THAN STANDARD THERAPY.

ABSTRACT: Background : The influence of restrictive fluid resuscitation and the early administration of vasopressors on the clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock are not fully understood. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of restrictive fluid management on mortality and organ dysfunction in patients with septic shock. Methods : This study included consecutive patients with septic shock in need of fluid resuscitation. Based on the fluid management provided in the initial resuscitation phase, a comparison was made between a restrictive group and a standard fluid management group. The primary outcome was in-hospital death, whereas secondary outcomes included organ dysfunction and other adverse events. Results : A total of 238 patients were included in this study. Restrictive fluid management was administered to 59.2% of patients, whereas 40.8% received standard fluid management. Restrictive resuscitation was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality rate (24.8% vs. 52.6%), as well as a shorter median intensive care unit stay (8.0 vs. 11.0 days). The restrictive strategy was associated with a significantly lower prevalence of new-onset acute kidney injury (25.5% vs. 51.5%) and a decrease in the incidence of renal replacement therapy (20.6% vs. 40.2%). The standard group had a higher risk of the need for mechanical ventilation and a significantly lower median number of days without a ventilator than the restrictive group. The median duration of vasopressor-free days in the restrictive group was significantly longer than that in the standard group (25.0 vs. 18.0). The administration rate of inotropes in the restrictive group was significantly lower than that in the standard group. A multivariate logistic regression model showed that restrictive fluid management (odds ratio [OR], 0.312; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.098-0.994) and vasopressor-free days (OR, 0.807; 95% CI, 0.765-0.851) protect against in-hospital death, whereas Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores (OR, 1.121; 95% CI, 1.018-1.234) were independent risk factors for in-hospital death. Conclusions : Restrictive fluid resuscitation and early vasopressor protocol in patients with septic shock are associated with better outcomes, indicating that this regimen is feasible and safe.

Safety, efficacy and biomarkers analysis of mesenchymal stromal cells therapy in ARDS: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on phase I and II RCTs.

BACKGROUND: Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) therapy for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is an emerging treatment, but most of the current trials of MSCs stay in the animal experimental stage, and the safety and efficacy of MSCs in clinical application are not clear. We aimed to analyze the safety, efficacy and biomarkers of mesenchymal stromal cells in the treatment of ARDS. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of science, CNKI, VIP and Wan Fang data, studies published between database inception and Mar 17, 2022. All randomized controlled trials (RCT) of stem cell interventions for ARDS were included, without language or date restrictions. We did separate meta-analyses for mortality, subjects with adverse events (AEs) and subjects with serious adverse events (SAEs). Since the trials data are dichotomous outcomes, the odds ratio (OR) is adopted for meta-analysis. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. FINDINGS: In total, 5 trials involving 171 patients with ARDS were included in this meta-analysis. A total of 99 individuals were randomly assigned to receive MSCs treatment, and 72 were randomly assigned to receive placebo treatment. Treatment with MSCs appeared to increase the occurrence of adverse events, but this result was not statistically significant (OR, 1.58; 95%CI, 0.64-3.91; P = 0.32). The occurrence of serious adverse events was lower in the MSCs group than in the placebo group (OR, 0.57; 95%CI, 0.14-2.32; P = 0.43); there seems to be no significant difference between the two groups in terms of 28 days mortality (OR, 0.93; 95%CI, 0.45-1.89); oxygenation index and biomarkers showed a tendency to improve in treatment, but there was a lack of more statistically significant clinical evidence to support them. INTERPRETATION: Based on the current clinical trials, MSCs intervention has some safety for ARDS patients, but its effectiveness and predictive value of airspace biomarkers need to be determined by more large-scale, standard randomized controlled trials.