Balanced crystalloids versus saline for critically ill patients (BEST-Living): a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis
- PMID: 38043564
- DOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(23)00417-4
Balanced crystalloids versus saline for critically ill patients (BEST-Living): a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis
Abstract
Background: The effect of balanced crystalloids compared with that of saline in critically ill patients overall and in specific subgroups is unclear. We aimed to assess whether use of balanced solutions, compared with 0·9% sodium chloride (saline), decreased in-hospital mortality in adult patients in intensive care units (ICUs).
Methods: For this systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases from inception until March 1, 2022 (updated Sept 1, 2023) for individually randomised and cluster-randomised trials comparing balanced solutions with saline for adult patients in the ICU. Eligible trials were those that allocated patients to receive balanced solutions or saline for fluid resuscitation and maintenance fluids, or for maintenance fluids only; and administered the allocated fluid throughout ICU admission or, for trials using landmark mortality as their primary outcome, until the timepoint at which mortality was assessed (if ≥28 days). Authors of eligible trials were contacted to request individual patient data. Data obtained from eligible trials were merged, checked for accuracy, and centrally analysed by use of Bayesian regression models. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Prespecified subgroups included patients with traumatic brain injury. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022299282).
Findings: Our search identified 5219 records, yielding six eligible randomised controlled trials. Data obtained for 34 685 participants from the six trials, 17 407 assigned to receive balanced crystalloids and 17 278 to receive saline, were included in the analysis. The mean age of participants was 58·8 years (SD 17·5). Of 34 653 participants with available data, 14 579 (42·1%) were female and 20 074 (57·9%) were male. Among patients who provided consent to report in-hospital mortality, 2907 (16·8%) of 17 313 assigned balanced solutions and 2975 (17·3%) of 17 166 assigned saline died in hospital (odds ratio [OR] 0·962 [95% CrI 0·909 to 1·019], absolute difference -0·4 percentage points [-1·5 to 0·2]). The posterior probability that balanced solutions reduced mortality was 0·895. In patients with traumatic brain injury, 191 (19·1%) of 999 assigned balanced and 141 (14·7%) of 962 assigned saline died (OR 1·424 [1·100 to 1·818], absolute difference 3·2 percentage points [0·7 to 8·7]). The probability that balanced solutions increased mortality in patients with traumatic brain injury was 0·975. In an independent risk of bias assessment, two trials were deemed to be at low risk of bias and four at high risk of bias.
Interpretation: The probability that using balanced solutions in the ICU reduces in-hospital mortality is high, although the certainty of the evidence was moderate and the absolute risk reduction was small. In patients with traumatic brain injury, using balanced solutions was associated with increased in-hospital mortality.
Funding: HCor (Brazil) and The George Institute for Global Health (Australia).
Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of interests FGZ reports receiving consulting fees from Baxter (USA) and Bactiguard (Sweden), and grants, paid to his institution from Ionis Pharmaceuticals (USA), and receiving logistical support and donation of study materials from Baxter Hospitalar for the BaSICS trial. ABC reports receiving logistical support and donation of study materials from Baxter Hospitalar for the BaSICS trial. GLDT reports receiving consulting fees from Gilead paid to his then employer (The George Institute for Global Health) for work outside the scope of this paper. LPD reports receiving fees for statistical analysis from Nestlé and Endpoint Health, all unrelated to the scope of this study. NEH reports research funding and donation of study materials from Baxter Healthcare related to intravenous fluid therapy, research funding from Endpoint Health, and consulting fees from RevImmune unrelated to fluid therapy, all paid to her employer; and competitive research grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Medical Research Future Fund. FRM reports receiving consulting fees from Baxter and receiving logistical support and donation of study materials from Baxter Hospitalar for the BaSICS trial. SM declares no competing interests. JM reports research funding and donation of study materials from Baxter Healthcare related to intravenous fluid therapy, paid to his employer; research funding from Endpoint Health unrelated to fluid therapy; and competitive research grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Medical Research Future Fund. MR reports donation of study materials from Baxter Healthcare related to intravenous fluid therapy and competitive research grants from the Australian Medical Research Future Fund. BV reports donation of study materials from Baxter Healthcare related to intravenous fluid therapy, research funding from Endpoint Health unrelated to fluid therapy, and consulting fees from RevImmune unrelated to fluid therapy, all paid to his institution; and competitive research grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. TWR reports receiving consulting fees received from Cumberland Pharmaceuticals and Cytovale and fees for serving as a data safety and monitoring board member from Sanofi, all unrelated to the scope of this paper; and grants from the US National Institutes for Health, Centers for Disease Control, and Department of Defence, all paid to his institution. MWS reports receiving grants from the US National Institutes for Health and Department of Defence unrelated to the current work; and consulting fees and honoraria from Baxter Healthcare related to intravenous fluid therapy. PJY reports receiving competitive grants from the Health Research Council of New Zealand unrelated to this work; consulting fees from AM Pharma unrelated to this work; and consulting fees from Baxter Healthcare related to intravenous fluid therapy. SF reports competitive research grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, research funding and consulting fees from Baxter Healthcare related to intravenous fluid therapy, research funding and consulting fees from RevImmune unrelated to fluid therapy, and research funding from Endpoint Health unrelated to fluid therapy, all paid to his institution; and owning stock options in Sepsis Scout, unrelated to fluid therapy.
Similar articles
-
Balanced crystalloids versus saline in critically ill patients: The PRISMA study of a meta-analysis.Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 Sep 24;100(38):e27203. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000027203. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021. PMID: 34559108 Free PMC article.
-
Effect of Treatment With Balanced Crystalloids Versus Normal Saline on the Mortality of Critically Ill Patients With and Without Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Anesth Analg. 2025 Jul 1;141(1):152-161. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000007368. Epub 2025 Jan 20. Anesth Analg. 2025. PMID: 39832223
-
Fluid resuscitation with balanced crystalloids versus normal saline in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2022 Apr 18;30(1):28. doi: 10.1186/s13049-022-01015-3. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2022. PMID: 35436929 Free PMC article.
-
Balanced Crystalloids versus Saline in Critically Ill Adults - A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.NEJM Evid. 2022 Feb;1(2):EVIDoa2100010. doi: 10.1056/EVIDoa2100010. Epub 2022 Jan 18. NEJM Evid. 2022. PMID: 38319180
-
Balanced crystalloids versus normal saline for fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.Am J Emerg Med. 2019 Nov;37(11):2072-2078. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2019.02.045. Epub 2019 Mar 1. Am J Emerg Med. 2019. PMID: 30852043
Cited by
-
Advances in resuscitation and deresuscitation.Curr Opin Crit Care. 2025 Jun 1;31(3):277-284. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000001267. Epub 2025 Apr 21. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2025. PMID: 40079499 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Management of adult sepsis in resource-limited settings: global expert consensus statements using a Delphi method.Intensive Care Med. 2025 Jan;51(1):21-38. doi: 10.1007/s00134-024-07735-7. Epub 2024 Dec 23. Intensive Care Med. 2025. PMID: 39714613 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Blood Pressure Targets for Adults with Vasodilatory Shock - An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.NEJM Evid. 2025 Jan;4(1):EVIDoa2400359. doi: 10.1056/EVIDoa2400359. Epub 2024 Nov 18. NEJM Evid. 2025. PMID: 39556565 Free PMC article.
-
Fluid balance after cardiac arrest: Any impact on outcome? Insights from the MIMIC IV database.Resusc Plus. 2025 Jul 17;25:101037. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2025.101037. eCollection 2025 Sep. Resusc Plus. 2025. PMID: 40777885 Free PMC article.
-
Which Intravenous Isotonic Fluid Offers Better Outcomes for Patients with a Brain Injury?Neurocrit Care. 2025 Apr;42(2):715-721. doi: 10.1007/s12028-024-02139-3. Epub 2024 Oct 8. Neurocrit Care. 2025. PMID: 39379751 Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical