Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Apr 6:10:1071741.
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1071741. eCollection 2023.

A retrospective analysis of normal saline and lactated ringers as resuscitation fluid in sepsis

Shahin Isha #  1 , Parthkumar H Satashia #  1 , Siva Naga S Yarrarapu  1 , Austin B Govero  1 , Michael F Harrison  1   2 , Hassan Z Baig  1 , Pramod Guru  1 , Anirban Bhattacharyya  1 , Colleen T Ball  3 , Sean M Caples  4 , Ami A Grek  1 , Michael R Vizzini  1 , Syed Anjum Khan  5 , Katherine J Heise  1 , Hiroshi Sekiguchi  6 , Warren L Cantrell  1 , Jeffrey D Smith  1 , Sanjay Chaudhary  1 , Karthik Gnanapandithan  7 , Kristine M Thompson  2 , Charles G Graham  2 , Jed C Cowdell  7 , Aleksandra Murawska Baptista  7 , Claudia R Libertin  8 , Pablo Moreno Franco  1 , Devang K Sanghavi  1
Affiliations

A retrospective analysis of normal saline and lactated ringers as resuscitation fluid in sepsis

Shahin Isha et al. Front Med (Lausanne). .

Abstract

Background: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign suggested preferential resuscitation with balanced crystalloids, such as Lactated Ringer's (LR), although the level of recommendation was weak, and the quality of evidence was low. Past studies reported an association of unbalanced solutions, such as normal saline (NS), with increased AKI risks, metabolic acidosis, and prolonged ICU stay, although some of the findings are conflicting. We have compared the outcomes with the preferential use of normal saline vs. ringer's lactate in a cohort of sepsis patients.

Method: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients visiting the ED of 19 different Mayo Clinic sites between August 2018 to November 2020 with sepsis and receiving at least 30 mL/kg fluid in the first 6 h. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on the type of resuscitation fluid (LR vs. NS) and propensity-matching was done based on clinical characteristics as well as fluid amount (with 5 ml/kg). Single variable logistic regression (categorical outcomes) and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare the primary and secondary outcomes between the 2 groups.

Results: Out of 2022 patients meeting our inclusion criteria; 1,428 (70.6%) received NS, and 594 (29.4%) received LR as the predominant fluid (>30 mL/kg). Patients receiving predominantly NS were more likely to be male and older in age. The LR cohort had a higher BMI, lactate level and incidence of septic shock. Propensity-matched analysis did not show a difference in 30-day and in-hospital mortality rate, mechanical ventilation, oxygen therapy, or CRRT requirement. We did observe longer hospital LOS in the LR group (median 5 vs. 4 days, p = 0.047 and higher requirement for ICU post-admission (OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.96; p = 0.026) in the NS group. However, these did not remain statistically significant after adjustment for multiple testing.

Conclusion: In our matched cohort, we did not show any statistically significant difference in mortality rates, hospital LOS, ICU admission after diagnosis, mechanical ventilation, oxygen therapy and RRT between sepsis patients receiving lactated ringers and normal saline as predominant resuscitation fluid. Further large-scale prospective studies are needed to solidify the current guidelines on the use of balanced crystalloids.

Keywords: balanced solution; fluid dose; normal saline; resuscitation; ringers lactate; sepsis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Flowchart showing inclusion and exclusion of patients in the study cohort.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Singer M, Deutschman C, Seymour C, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA. (2016) 315:801. 10.1001/jama.2016.0287 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fleischmann C, Scherag A, Adhikari N, Hartog C, Tsaganos T, Schlattmann P, et al. Assessment of global incidence and mortality of hospital-treated sepsis. current estimates and limitations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. (2016) 193:259–72. 10.1164/rccm.201504-0781OC - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fleischmann-Struzek C, Mellhammar L, Rose N, Cassini A, Rudd K, Schlattmann P, et al. Incidence and mortality of hospital- and ICU-treated sepsis: results from an updated and expanded systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. (2020) 46:1552–62. 10.1007/s00134-020-06151-x - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, Antonelli M, Coopersmith C, French C, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. (2021) 47:1181–247. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Morgan T. The ideal crystalloid - what is “balanced”? Curr Opin Crit Care. (2013) 19:299–307. 10.1097/MCC.0b013e3283632d46 - DOI - PubMed