Hypertonic saline for intraoperative fluid therapy in transurethral resection of the prostate

Hypertonic saline for fluid resuscitation in ICU patients post-cardiac surgery (HERACLES): a double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial

PURPOSE

Recent evidence questions a liberal approach to fluid resuscitation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Here, we assess whether use of hypertonic saline applied as single infusion at ICU admission after cardiac surgery can reduce cumulative perioperative fluid volume.

METHODS

Prospective randomized double-blind single-center clinical trial investigates effects of a single infusion of hypertonic saline (HS) versus normal saline (comparator). Primary endpoint was the cumulative amount of fluid administered in patients in the hypertonic saline versus the 0.9% saline groups (during ICU stay). Upon ICU admission, patients received a single infusion of 5 ml/kg body weight of 7.3% NaCl (or 0.9% NaCl) over 60 min. Patients undergoing cardiac surgery for elective valvular and/or coronary heart disease were included. Patients with advanced organ dysfunction, infection, and/or patients on chronic steroid medication were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients were randomized to receive the study intervention (HS n = 53, NS n = 48). Cumulative fluid intake on the ICU (primary endpoint) did not differ between the HS and the NS groups [median 3193 ml (IQR 2052-4333 ml) vs. 3345 ml (IQR 2332-5043 ml)]. Postoperative urinary output until ICU discharge was increased in HS-treated patients [median 2250 ml (IQR 1640-2690 ml) vs. 1545 ml (IQR 1087-1976 ml)], and ICU fluid balance was lower in the HS group when compared to the NS group [296 ml (IQR - 441 to 1412 ml) vs. 1137 ml (IQR 322-2660 ml)].

CONCLUSION

In a monocentric prospective double-blind randomized clinical trial, we observed that hypertonic saline did not reduce the total fluid volume administered on the ICU in critically ill cardiac surgery patients. Hypertonic saline infusion was associated with timely increase in urinary output. Variations in electrolyte and acid-base homeostasis were transient, but substantial in all patients.

Prophylaxis versus Treatment against Transurethral Resection of Prostate Syndrome: The Role of Hypertonic Saline

BACKGROUND

This study aimed at investigating the usage and effects of prophylactic hypertonic saline (HS) to prevent the occurrence of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) syndrome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classes I-III candidates for TURP using the monopolar resectoscope were randomized into three groups 20 patients each. Group A received 4 mL.kg-1.h-1 HS 3%; Group B received 2 mL.kg-1.h-1 HS 3%; and Group C received 6 mL.kg-1.h-1 normal saline. Hemodynamics, vasopressors need, electrolytes (sodium, potassium, and chloride), osmolality, and arterial-blood gas (ABG) were recorded. The incidence of transurethral resection syndrome, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, postoperative ventilation, hospital stay as well as any adverse events were noted.

RESULTS

Hypernatremia was detected in six patients (P = 0.002) of Group A only, while hyponatremia occurred in five patients (P = 0.009) of Group C alone. Serum sodium in Group C showed a significant decrease starting from T2 (1 h postresection) till Tp3 (48 h postoperative). In Group C, five patients experienced hypotension and bradycardia; hypertensive episodes also occurred in five patients and a hypervolemic state was noted in seven patients. TURP syndrome was confirmed in only five patients, all in Group C (P = 0.009). Postoperative ICU admission was needed for seven patients of C Group, five of which required assisted ventilation. The overall hospital stay was longer for Group C patients.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic administration of HS during TURP is superior to conventional treatment of an occurred TURP syndrome. Low dose (2 mL.kg-1.h-1 HS 3%) is effective without adverse effects or risk of contrary hypernatremia.

Hypertonic saline in critical illness - A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The optimal approach to fluid management in critically ill patients is highly debated. Fluid resuscitation using hypertonic saline was used in the past for more than thirty years, but has recently disappeared from clinical practice. Here we provide an overview on the currently available literature on effects of hypertonic saline infusion for fluid resuscitation in the critically ill.

METHODS

Systematic analysis of reports of clinical trials comparing effects of hypertonic saline as resuscitation fluid to other available crystalloid solutions. A literature search of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials register (CENTRAL) was conducted to identify suitable studies.

RESULTS

The applied search strategy produced 2284 potential publications. After eliminating doubles, 855 titles and abstracts were screened and 40 references retrieved for full text analysis. At total of 25 scientific studies meet the prespecified inclusion criteria for this study.

CONCLUSION

Fluid resuscitation using hypertonic saline results in volume expansion and less total infusion volume. This may be of interest in oedematous patients with intravascular volume depletion. When such strategies are employed, renal effects may differ markedly according to prior intravascular volume status. Hypertonic saline induced changes in serum osmolality and electrolytes return to baseline within a limited period in time. Sparse evidence indicates that resuscitation with hypertonic saline results in less perioperative complications, ICU days and mortality in selected patients. In conclusion, the use of hypertonic saline may have beneficial features in selected critically ill patients when carefully chosen. Further clinical studies assessing relevant clinical outcomes are warranted.

Hypertonic salt solution for peri-operative fluid management

BACKGROUND

Fluid excess may place people undergoing surgery at risk for various complications. Hypertonic salt solution (HS) maintains intravascular volume with less intravenous fluid than isotonic salt (IS) solutions, but may increase serum sodium. This review was published in 2010 and updated in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of HS versus IS solutions administered for fluid resuscitation to people undergoing surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

In this updated review we have searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 4, 2016); MEDLINE (January 1966 to April 2016); EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2016); LILACS (January 1982 to April 2016) and CINAHL (January 1982 to April 2016) without language restrictions. We conducted the original search on April 30th, 2007, and reran it on April 8th, 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We have included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing HS to IS in people undergoing surgery, irrespective of blinding, language, and publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors read studies that met our selection criteria. We collected study information and data using a data collection sheet with predefined parameters. We have assessed the impact of HS administration on mortality, organ failure, fluid balance, serum sodium, serum osmolarity, diuresis and physiologic measures of cardiovascular function. We have pooled the data using the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes. We evaluated heterogeneity between studies by I² percentage. We consider studies with an I² of 0% to 30% to have no or little heterogeneity, 30% to 60% as having moderate heterogeneity, and more than 60% as having high heterogeneity. In studies with low heterogeneity we have used a fixed-effect model, and a random-effects model for studies with moderate to high heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We have included 18 studies with 1087 participants of whom 545 received HS compared to 542 who received IS. All participants were over 18 years of age and all trials excluded high-risk patients (ASA IV). All trials assessed haematological parameters peri-operatively and up to three days post-operatively.There were three (< 1%) deaths reported in the IS group and four (< 1%) in the HS group, as assessed at 90 days in one study. There were no reports of serious adverse events. Most participants were in a positive fluid balance postoperatively (4.4 L IS and 2.5 L HS), with the excess significantly less in HS participants (MD -1.92 L, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.61 to -1.22 L; P < 0.00001). IS participants received a mean volume of 2.4 L and HS participants received 1.49 L, significantly less fluid than IS-treated participants (MD -0.91 L, 95% CI -1.24 to -0.59 L; P < 0.00001). The maximum average serum sodium ranged between 138.5 and 159 in HS groups compared to between 136 and 143 meq/L in the IS groups. The maximum serum sodium was significantly higher in HS participants (MD 7.73, 95% CI 5.84 to 9.62; P < 0.00001), although the level remained within normal limits (136 to 146 meq/L).A high degree of heterogeneity appeared to be related to considerable differences in the dose of HS between studies. The quality of the evidence for the outcomes reported ranged from high to very low. The risk of bias for many of the studies could not be determined for performance and detection bias, criteria that we assess as likely to impact the study outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

HS reduces the volume of intravenous fluid required to maintain people undergoing surgery but transiently increases serum sodium. It is not known if HS affects survival and morbidity, but this should be examined in randomized controlled trials that are designed and powered to test these outcomes.

Hypertonic saline for peri-operative fluid management

BACKGROUND

Fluid excess may place patients undergoing surgery at risk for various complications. Hypertonic saline (HS) maintains intravascular volume with less intravenous fluid than isotonic salt (IS) solutions, but may increase serum sodium.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of HS versus IS solutions administered to patients undergoing surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library) Issue 1, 2009; MEDLINE (1966 to 2009); EMBASE (1980 to 2009); LILACS (to August 2009) and CINAHL (1982 to 2009) without language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized clinical trials where HS was compared to IS in patients undergoing surgery, irrespective of blinding, language, and publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed the impact of HS administration on mortality, organ failure, fluid balance, serum sodium, serum osmolarity, diuresis and physiologic measures of cardiovascular function. We pooled data using odds ratio or mean difference (MD) for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively, using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 studies with 614 participants. One death in each group and no other serious adverse events were reported. While all patients were in a positive fluid balance postoperatively, the excess was significantly less in HS patients (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.43L, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8 to 2.1 L less; P < 0.00001). Patients treated with HS received significantly less fluid than IS-treated patients (MD -2.4L 95% (CI) 1.5 to 3.2 L less; P < 0.00001) without differences in diuresis between the groups. Maximum intraoperative cardiac index was significantly increased with HS (SMD 0.6 L/min/M2 higher, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.0, P = 0.02) but Intraoperative pulmonary artery wedge pressure remained unchanged. While the maximum serum sodium and the serum sodium at the end of the study were significantly higher in HS patients, the level remained within normal limits (136 to 146 meq/L).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

HS reduces the volume of intravenous fluid required to maintain patients undergoing surgery but transiently increases serum sodium. It is not known if HS effects patient survival and morbidity but it should be tested in randomized clinical trials that are designed and powered to test these outcomes.