Evidence Hub

Balanced Crystalloids Versus Saline in Sepsis: A Secondary Analysis of the SMART Trial

Ryan M. Brown, Li Wang, T. Coston, N. Krishnan, J. Casey, J. Wanderer, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, Daniel W Byrne et al.

American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2019

15,802 participants · 100 citations

Abstract

RATIONALE

Administration of intravenous crystalloid solutions is a fundamental therapy for sepsis, but the effect of crystalloid composition on patient outcomes remains unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of balanced crystalloids versus saline on 30-day in-hospital mortality among critically ill adults with sepsis.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of patients from the Isotonic Solutions and Major Adverse Renal Events Trial (SMART) admitted to the medical intensive care unit with an ICD-10-CM code for sepsis, using multivariable regression to control for potential confounders.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 15,802 patients enrolled in SMART, 1,641 patients were admitted to the medical intensive care unit with a diagnosis of sepsis. A total of 217 patients (26.3%) in the balanced crystalloids group experienced 30-day in-hospital morality, compared with 255 patients (31.2%) in the saline group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.59 - 0.93; P = 0.01). Patients in the balanced group experienced a lower incidence of major adverse kidney events within 30 days (35.4% vs 40.1%; aOR 0.78; 95% CI 0.63 - 0.97) and a greater number of vasopressor-free days (20 ± 12 vs 19 ± 13; aOR 1.25; 95% CI 1.02 - 1.54) and renal replacement therapy-free days (20 ± 12 vs 19 ± 13; aOR 1.35 [1.08 - 1.69]), compared to the saline group.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with sepsis in a large randomized trial, use of balanced crystalloids was associated with a lower 30-day in-hospital…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 15,802 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free