Examining Crystalloid Resuscitation

2016 - 4 August- Clinical Controversies Highlighted at the 45th Critical Care Congress
Scott L. Weiss, MD, MSCE
Learn about an ongoing debate revolving around crystalloid resuscitation.


Fluid resuscitation is the cornerstone of resuscitation for hypovolemia and shock, and intravenous fluids are among the most commonly used therapies worldwide.(1,2) Yet there remains uncertainty as to the most appropriate fluid type to restore effective blood volume and optimize organ perfusion. In the absence of a clear role for the early use of colloids, administration of crystalloid fluids is generally preferred (except in cases of hemorrhage).(3,4) Crystalloid fluids are inexpensive, stable at room temperature, and safe to rapidly administer to most patients, making them useful in a wide variety of care settings.

Crystalloid fluids can be categorized as either non-buffered or balanced. Non-buffered crystalloids are salt solutions, of which isotonic 0.9% normal saline (NS) is the most relevant for shock resuscitation. Hypotonic saline solutions, such as 0.45% saline, should not be used for large-volume fluid resuscitation; hypertonic saline solutions, such as 3% saline, do not have proven benefit for resuscitation.(5-7) Several balanced solutions are available, including lactated Ringer’s (LR) solution, Hartmann solution, and Plasma-Lyte (Baxter Healthcare International, Inc.). Unlike NS, which consists of only sodium and chloride in a 1:1 ratio, balanced fluids have an electrolyte composition closer to human blood plasma, though formulations vary (Table 1). NS contains a supraphysiologic concentration of chloride (1.5 times that of plasma) and a strong ion difference (SID) of zero, but is isotonic compared to extracellular fluid. Balanced solutions have less chloride, small amounts of additional electrolytes, and a higher SID due to the presence of an anion buffer. Although NS is the preferential crystalloid used for resuscitation in 80% to 90% of pediatric and adult patients,(8-11) recent data have called into question the relative safety of NS compared to more balanced solutions.

Infusion of saline to restore circulating blood volume was first attempted during the cholera outbreak of the 1830s. In a letter to The Lancet published on June 2, 1832, Thomas Latta noted that, with intravenous saline, “improvement in the pulse and countenance is almost simultaneous, the cadaverous expression gradually gives place to appearances of returning animation, the livid hue disappears, the warmth of the body returns.”(12) Fluids of various composition were subsequently described, with the first reference to a solution similar to that of NS in the 1880s. Hartog Jakob Hamburger recognized that erythrocytes did not lyse when placed in NS and concluded that “the blood of man was isotonic with a NaCl solution of 0.9%”.(13) Although these observations conceivably led to the “normal” moniker for 0.9% NS (nobody knows for sure), human plasma is actually closer to 0.6% sodium chloride. Subsequent events leading to the widespread adoption of NS into clinical practice remain unclear. LR was also born in the 1880s when Sydney Ringer added calcium and potassium to saline after observing that inorganic constituents of pipe water better preserved frog heart muscle ex vivo than just salt dissolved in distilled water.(14) In 1932, the pediatrician Alexis Hartmann modified Ringer’s original formula in order to reduce the acidosis observed in infants with diarrhea.(13) More recently, Plasma-Lyte was developed to address the slight hypotonicity and presence of calcium (leading to some drug incompatibilities) in LR and Hartmann solutions.
 
The high chloride content and low SID of NS have been associated with acute kidney injury (AKI), acidemia, hyperkalemia, vascular permeability, inflammation, coagulopathy, fluid overload, and death.(15) For example, infusion of NS reduced renal blood flow and glomerular filtration rate in a dog model to a greater extent than more balanced fluids.(16) In healthy human volunteers, infusion of NS also led to more abdominal discomfort, drowsiness, and impaired cognition than balanced fluids.(17) Other studies have demonstrated that large volumes of NS induce a hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis due to the dilution of plasma bicarbonate within a constant CO2 environment in the absence of an alternative buffer.(18) In blood with normal protein levels, the SID (abbreviated Na + K – Cl) is approximately +40. Infusion of NS with a SID of 0 (154 Na + 0 K – 154 Cl) produces an acidemia.(19) Although the clinical importance of NS-induced acidemia is uncertain,(20) hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis is proinflammatory in cell culture experiments(21) and has been associated with mortality following noncardiac surgery.22 Moreover, since acidemia is often attributed to tissue hypoperfusion in shock, a low blood pH following NS resuscitation may propagate a feed-forward cycle of excessive fluid administration and volume overload.

Several recent clinical studies have compared the effects of NS and buffered crystalloids on patient outcomes. In a sequential period study of critically ill adults, the use of chloride-restrictive fluids (mostly Hartmann solution) reduced the odds of AKI by almost 50%.(23) However, the SPLIT randomized double-crossover trial of Plasma-Lyte and NS in 2,278 critically ill adults found no differences in AKI or mortality.(24) Similarly, in the CRISTAL open-label randomized trial of adult ICU patients with hypovolemic shock, 31% of 72 patients who received LR died, compared to 27% of 1,035 who received NS (p = 0.49).(25) In contrast, a propensity-matched observational study of 6,730 adults with vasopressor-dependent septic shock found that receipt of at least some balanced fluids was associated with a 14% relative reduction in hospital mortality.(26) In a meta-analysis, adult septic patients who received balanced fluids had a trend toward lower mortality more than those who received NS (OR 0.78, 95% CI, 0.58–1.05) though no trial was included that directly compared NS to balanced fluids.(27) In a randomized trial of 65 adults with trauma, resuscitation with balanced fluids resulted in improved acid-base status and less hyperchloremia at 24 hours.(28) Finally, in adult patients undergoing abdominal surgery, use of balanced fluids on the day of surgery was associated with fewer postoperative infections.(29)

Despite these data, none of the proprietary balanced solutions are truly physiologic, and each has potential disadvantages. LR and Hartmann solution are both slightly hypotonic and have been shown to lower blood osmolality, increase brain water content, and transiently raise intracranial pressure.(30,31) Infants with a disproportionally large brain and patients with an injured blood-brain barrier may be at particularly high risk of cerebral edema with hypotonic balanced solutions. The presence of calcium may also lead to microvascular thromboses and, in some patients, an inability to clear lactate may lead to a lactic acidosis. Moreover, in a randomized trial of four fluid regimens in children with dengue fever, patients receiving LR were slower to recover from shock compared to those receiving NS.(32) Even Plasma-Lyte, which is the most physiologically balanced solution and avoids compatibility issues with calcium, is limited by a cost that is several times that of other crystalloid fluids.(1)

So what are we left to do at the bedside? Data from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign demonstrate that early crystalloid fluid resuscitation saves lives(33) (though the FEAST study calls into question this routine practice in resource-limited areas(34)), regardless of the precise composition. But whether there is a benefit for either NS or a more balanced fluid strategy remains unknown. Because crystalloid fluids are so commonly used, even a small relative benefit of one fluid resuscitation strategy could provide a substantial public health impact. Ongoing studies will shed some additional light on this question (PLUS study, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02721654; SaLt-ED study, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02614040), but more data are needed. Given that both types of fluids are inexpensive, stable at room temperature, commonly used, have identical storage and dosing volumes, and are of proven clinical benefit, crystalloids fluids provide the ideal scenario for a large pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial. Such studies should differentiate between patients requiring fluids for shock versus mild dehydration or maintenance fluids, select for patients requiring large-volume fluid resuscitation (since type of crystalloid probably matters less for patients who need only one or two fluid boluses), and enroll patients early on in their resuscitation. For this last point, trial designs incorporating delayed or exception from informed consent should be considered. After 180 years, our patients deserve to know that we are prescribing the best fluid, whether it is “normal” or balanced.

References:

1. Myburgh JA, Mythen MG. Resuscitation fluids. N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 26;369(13):1243-1251.
2. Finfer S, Liu B, Taylor C, et al; SAFE TRIPS Investigators. Resuscitation fluid use in critically ill adults: an international cross-sectional study in 391 intensive care units. Crit Care. 2010;14(5):R185.
3. Brierley J, Carcillo JA, Choong K, et al. Clinical practice parameters for hemodynamic support of pediatric and neonatal septic shock: 2007 update from the American College of Critical Care Medicine. Crit Care Med. 2009 Feb;37(2):666-688.
4. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, et al; Surving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines Committee including the Pediatric Subgroup. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012. Crit Care Med. 2013 Feb;41(2):580-637.
5. Chopra A, Kumar V, Dutta A. Hypertonic versus normal saline as initial fluid bolus in pediatric septic shock. Indian J Pediatr. 2011 Jul;78(7):833-837.
6. Bulger EM, May S, Brasel KJ, et al; ROC Investigators. Out-of-hospital hypertonic resuscitation following severe traumatic brain injury: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2010 Oct 6;304(13):1455-1464.
7. Singh A, Carlin BW, Shade D, Kaplan PD. The use of hypertonic saline for fluid resuscitation in sepsis: a review. Crit Care Nurs Q. 2009 Jan-Mar;32(1):10-13.
8. Boulain T, Boisrame-Helms J, Ehrmann S, et al. Volume expansion in the first 4 days of shock: a prospective multicentre study in 19 French intensive care units. Intensive Care Med. 2015 Feb;41(2):248-256.
9. Cecconi M, Hofer C, Teboul JL, et al; FENICE Investigators; ESICM Trial Group. Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: A global inception cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2015 Sep;41(9):1529-1537.
10. Long E, Babl F, Dalziel S, et al; Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT). Fluid resuscitation for paediatric sepsis: a survey of senior emergency physicians in Australia and New Zealand. Emerg Med Australas. 2015 Jun;27(3):245-250.
11. Thompson GC, Macias CG. Recognition and management of sepsis in children: practice patterns in the emergency department. J Emerg Med. 2015 Oct;49(4):391-399.
12. Baskett TF. William O'Shaughnessy, Thomas Latta and the origins of intravenous saline. Resuscitation. 2002 Dec;55(3):231-234.
13. Awad S, Allison SP, Lobo DN. The history of 0.9% saline. Clin Nutr. 2008 Apr;27(2):179-188.
14. Ringer S. A further contribution regarding the influence of the different constituents of the blood on the contraction of the heart. J Physiol. 1883 Jan;4(1):29-42.23.
15. Santi M, Lava SA, Camozzi P, et al. The great fluid debate: saline or so-called "balanced" salt solutions? Ital J Pediatr. 2015 Jun;41:47.
16. Wilcox CS. Regulation of renal blood flow by plasma chloride. J Clin Invest. 1983 Mar;71(3):726-735.
17. Chowdhury AH, Cox EF, Francis ST, Lobo DN. A randomized, controlled, double-blind crossover study on the effects of 2-L infusions of 0.9% saline and Plasma-Lyte® 148 on renal blood flow velocity and renal cortical tissue perfusion in healthy volunteers. Ann Surg. 2012 Jul;256(1):18-24.
18. Doberer D, Funk GC, Kirchner K, Schneeweiss B. A critique of Stewart's approach: the chemical mechanism of dilutional acidosis. Intensive Care Med. 2009 Dec;35(12):2173-2180.
19. Reddi BA. Why is saline so acidic (and does it really matter?). Int J Med Sci. 2013 Apr 17;10(6):747-750.
20. Gunnerson KJ, Saul M, He S, Kellum JA. Lactate versus non-lactate metabolic acidosis: a retrospective outcome evaluation of critically ill patients. Crit Care. 2006 Feb;10(1):R22.
21. Kellum JA, Song M, Li J. Lactic and hydrochloric acids induce different patterns of inflammatory response in LPS-stimulated RAW 264.7 cells. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2004 Apr;286(4):R686-R692.
22. McCluskey SA, Karkouti K, Wijeysundera D, Minkovich L, Tait G, Beattie WS. Hyperchloremia after noncardiac surgery is independently associated with increased morbidity and mortality: a propensity-matched cohort study. Anesth Analg. 2013 Aug;117(2):412-421.
23. Yunos NM, Bellomo R, Hegarty C, Story D, Ho L, Bailey M. Association between a chloride-liberal vs chloride-restrictive intravenous fluid administration strategy and kidney injury in critically ill adults. JAMA. 2012 Oct 17;308(15):1566-1572.
24. Young P, Bailey M, Beasley R, et al; SPLIT Investigators; ANZICS CTG. Effect of a buffered crystalloid solution vs saline on acute kidney injury among patients in the intensive care unit: the SPLIT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015 Oct 27;314(16):1701-1710.
25. Annane D, Siami S, Jaber S, et al; CRISTAL Investigators. Effects of fluid resuscitation with colloids vs crystalloids on mortality in critically ill patients presenting with hypovolemic shock: the CRISTAL randomized trial. JAMA. 2013 Nov 6;310(17):1809-1817.
26. Raghunathan K, Shaw A, Nathanson B, et al. Association between the choice of IV crystalloid and in-hospital mortality among critically ill adults with sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2014 Jul;42(7):1585-1591.
27. Rochwerg B, Alhazzani W, Sindi A, et al; Fluids in Sepsis and Septic Shock Group. Fluid resuscitation in sepsis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014 Sep 2;161(5):347-355.
28. Young JB, Utter GH, Schermer CR, et al. Saline versus Plasma-Lyte A in initial resuscitation of trauma patients: a randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2014 Feb;259(2):255-262.
29. Shaw AD, Bagshaw SM, Goldstein SL, et al. Major complications, mortality, and resource utilization after open abdominal surgery: 0.9% saline compared to Plasma-Lyte. Ann Surg. 2012 May;255(5):821-829.
30. Tommasino C, Moore S, Todd MM. Cerebral effects of isovolemic hemodilution with crystalloid or colloid solutions. Crit Care Med. 1988 Sep;16(9):862-868.
31. Williams EL, Hildebrand KL, McCormick SA, Bedel MJ. The effect of intravenous lactated Ringer's solution versus 0.9% sodium chloride solution on serum osmolality in human volunteers. Anesth Analg. 1999 May;88(5):999-1003.
32. Ngo NT, Cao XT, Kneen R, et al. Acute management of dengue shock syndrome: a randomized double-blind comparison of 4 intravenous fluid regimens in the first hour. Clin Infect Dis. 2001 Jan 15;32(2):204-213.
33. Levy MM, Rhodes A, Phillips GS, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: association between performance metrics and outcomes in a 7.5-year study. Crit Care Med. 2015 Jan;43(1):3-12.
34. Maitland K, Kiguli S, Opoka RO, et al; FEAST Trial Group. Mortality after fluid bolus in African children with severe infection. N Engl J Med. 2011 Jun 30;364(26):2483-2495.