Effects of Albumin Supplements on In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with Sepsis or Septic Shock: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Objective. To explore the clinical effects of albumin supplements on the basis of crystalloid solution in patients with sepsis or septic shock. Methods. The online databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were comprehensively searched from inception to June 28, 2021, with the keywords including “albumin,” “sepsis,” or “septic shock.” Retrospective cohort (RC) and randomized controlled trials (RCT) were included for analysis. Two authors independently searched and analyzed the literature. The in-hospital mortality at 7 days and 28 days, duration of mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, length of ICU stay, and length of hospital stay were compared between patients with albumin supplements and crystalloid solution and those with crystalloid alone. Results. A total of 10 studies with 6463 patients were eventually included for meta-analysis. The in-hospital mortality of patients at 7 days (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.81–1.23) and 28 days (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.91–1.13) did not show a significant difference between the two groups of patients. Also, the pooled results demonstrated no significant differences in duration of mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.29, 95% CI: −0.05–0.63), renal replacement therapy (WMD = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.98–1.35), length of ICU stay (WMD = −0.07, 95% CI: −0.62–0.48), and length of hospital stay (WMD = −0.09, 95% CI: −0.70–0.52) between patients receiving albumin plus crystalloid solution and those with crystalloid solution alone. Conclusion. Albumin supplements on the basis of crystalloid solution did not improve the 7-day and 28-dayin-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis or septic shock compared with those with crystalloid solution alone.

Retracted: Effects of Albumin Supplements on In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with Sepsis or Septic Shock: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [ 1 ]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process: Discrepancies in scope Discrepancies in the description of the research reported Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described Inappropriate citations Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article Peer-review manipulation …”