for the BaSICS investigators and the BRICNet members IMPORTANCE Slower intravenous fluid infusion rates could reduce the formation of tissue edema and organ dysfunction in critically ill patients; however, there are no data to support different infusion rates during fluid challenges for important outcomes such as mortality.OBJECTIVE To determine the effect of a slower infusion rate vs control infusion rate on 90-day survival in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Unblinded randomized factorial clinical trial in 75 ICUs in Brazil, involving 11 052 patients requiring at least 1 fluid challenge and with 1 risk factor for worse outcomes were randomized from May 29, 2017, to March 2, 2020. Follow-up was concluded on October 29, 2020. Patients were randomized to 2 different infusion rates (reported in this article) and 2 different fluid types (balanced fluids or saline, reported separately).INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive fluid challenges at 2 different infusion rates; 5538 to the slower rate (333 mL/h) and 5514 to the control group (999 mL/h). Patients were also randomized to receive balanced solution or 0.9% saline using a factorial design. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary end point was 90-day survival.RESULTS Of all randomized patients, 10 520 (95.2%) were analyzed (mean age, 61.1 years [SD, 17.0 years]; 44.2% were women) after excluding duplicates and consent withdrawals. Patients assigned to the slower rate received a mean of 1162 mL on the first day vs 1252 mL for the control group. By day 90, 1406 of 5276 patients (26.6%) in the slower rate group had died vs 1414 of 5244 (27.0%) in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96-1.11; P = .46). There was no significant interaction between fluid type and infusion rate (P = .98).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients in the intensive care unit requiring fluid challenges, infusing at a slower rate compared with a faster rate did not reduce 90-day mortality. These findings do not support the use of a slower infusion rate.
Uma das vantagens aventadas da vídeo-cirurgia é a possibilidade de formar menos aderências pós-operatórias. As evidências deste efeito resultam de trabalhos clínicos e experimentais, mas o real impacto desta via de acesso neste sentido ainda não foi comprovado. O objetivo da presente revisão foi avaliar as evidências científicas disponíveis sobre o assunto. Material e Métodos: revisão da literatura pertinente. Resultados: As aderências pós-operatórias foram analisadas no sítio da operação e nas incisões praticadas, porém existem poucas informações sobre aderências em locais não operados. Aderências pós-operatórias são menos freqüentes ou intensas quando se considera a via de acesso por vídeo. A despeito deste dado experimental, os desfechos clínicos de menor dor pélvica, menor número de admissões ou reoperações por obstrução intestinal e menor ocorrência de infertilidade ainda não podem ser claramente atribuídos a esta via de acesso, especialmente quando se consideram as cirurgias laparoscópicas avançadas, uma vez que nesta situação existe equivalência de área cruenta nas duas vias de acesso, à exceção da área associada às incisões. Conclusões: A via de acesso por vídeo está associada a menor formação de aderências, mas não protege de complicações relacionadas à sua ocorrência. Técnica operatória adequada e o uso de barreiras provavelmente estão mais fortemente associadas à menor formação de aderências do que a via de acesso aberta empregada para a realização das operações abdominais e pélvicas.
Laparoscopic surgery seems to be associated with less adhesion formation and complications associated to surgical access when compared to laparotomy. Experimental and clinical evidence confirm this hypothesis but the impact of laparoscopy on adhesion formation and its complications remains undetermined. The present article aims at reviewing the evidence on this issue. Method: literature review. Results: Postoperative adhesions were evaluated at operation site and at surgical scars. Nevertheless, results on adhesion formation at sites distant from them are still unavailable. Adhesion formation was less common or reduced when laparoscopic access was compared to conventional surgery. Main adverse outcomes regarding adhesion formation are pelvic pain, infertility, and intestinal obstruction. There is little evidence of reduced incidence of these adverse outcomes after laparoscopic surgery when compared to conventional access and there may be none at all when major laparoscopic operations are considered. This finding may be due to a similar extent of dissection after conventional or advanced video operations with the exception of the adhesions related to the incisions. Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery is associated to less adhesion formation but may not protect from adverse outcomes expected after abdominal operations. Adequate surgical technique and the use of commercially available adhesion barriers may be major determinants from adhesions formation and its consequences
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.