Printer Friendly

Lactato de Ringer vs. Solucion salina normal para trasplante renal. Revision sistematica y metaanalisis.

Lactated Ringer's vs. normal saline solution for renal transplantation: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Intraoperative fluid management during renal transplantation has traditionally been done with normal saline solution (NSS) because the administration of potassium solutions such as Lactated Ringer's (LR) in large volumes to surgical patients may lead to hyperpotassemia (1). Several papers have been published on the topic, showing that the administration of large volumes of NSS, as is usually the case in patients undergoing renal transplantation (RT), is associated with hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis (1-4).

According to Steward's theory, fluids usually administered during surgery may alter the acid-base balance and predispose to metabolic acidosis due to a rise in chloride levels (5,6). Such acidosis may lead to hyperpotassemia due to the extracellular shifts of potassium ions (1-3,7). Hyperchloremia may at the same time result in vasoconstriction of the afferent arteriole and renal graftinjury (2,3). Other acidosis-related complications may be changes in mental status and abdominal discomfort due to disruptions of the splanchnic vasculature (7) and it has even been associated with higher mortality in surgical patients (8).

Kidney transplant is the most usual transplantation in our country and around the world (9); RT results have improved with the advancement of surgical, immune suppressor, and anesthesia techniques. The presence of hyperpotassemia associated with hyperchrolemic metabolic acidosis may contribute to the graft dysfunction, and hence should be prevented in these patients (10).

Several trials have been published comparing the use of LR with NSS but they include few patients (2,3,11-14). We did a meta-analysis to assess the effects of LR vs. NSS on the incidence of hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis, hyperpotassemia, volume of fluids infused and kidney graft dysfunction in patients undergoing renal transplant.

Methodology

This systematic review followed the methodology recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration (14). This protocol has not been published and was not registered.

Eligibility criteria

The search included randomized, clinical controlled trials with no restrictions as to language, date or status of publication, comparing the use of LR against NSS as fluid therapy in renal transplantation patients, over 18 years old. The outcomes evaluated were the level of serum potassium, bicarbonate, chloride, Creatinine and the postoperative pH. The deadline of publication established was July 8, 2013.

Search strategies

Independently, the three authors did an electronic database search, contacting expert clinicians and searching review articles. No language and date of publication restrictions were applied.

The databases accessed were the Central Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials, Medline (1966-2013), Lilacs (1982-2013), EBSCO and Embase (1980-2013).

The search terms used were "renal transplant", "acidosis", "acidemia", "hyperpotassemia", "graft dysfunction", "Lactate Ringer's" and "saline solution".

Trial selection and evaluation

Two of the authors independently reviewed all the titles and abstracts identified in the bibliography searched and excluded the irrelevant trials. The remaining assays were evaluated in full text and disagreements were settled with the participation of the third author.

All three researchers--in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration guide--independently assessed the validity of the trials selected (15). The random sequence generation, the sequence hiding, blinding, information gathering, losses to follow-up during the trial, inclusion of incomplete data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases were all evaluated. Based on this methodology, the risk of biases was classified into high, uncertain, and low.

Data collection

Based on the recommendations from Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review data extraction template (14) the analysis of the information extracted was done using an information extraction table. The information that was required but not available after reading the articles was requested to the authors directly. The article with the largest sample was written in Farsi (13) and only the abstract was available in English. There were failed attempts to contact the authors in order to obtain the complete data. An investigator extracted the information from the trials, following the table closely. To ensure the accuracy of the data, a second investigator then reviewed the information collected.

Results analyzed

The results analyzed included the average serum potassium in mEq/L during the postoperative period, serum Creatinine in mg/dL three days after surgery, pH immediately after surgery, the volume of infused solution in liters and bicarbonate and chloride in the arterial blood expressed in mEq/L following surgery.

Statistical analysis

This meta-analysis estimated the mean difference with its respective 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the variables considered, using Review Manager software, version 5.1. An analysis using the fixed or random effects model was completed, based on the existence of statistical heterogeneity. The statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using the Q Cochrane test and the [I.sup.2] statistic. When [I.sup.2] was less than 40%, we used the fixed effects model and if [I.sup.2] was above 40%, the random effects model was used. The sensitivity analysis was completed based on the methodological quality of the trials, removing some trials and re-analyzing the data. Similarly, a sub-group analysis was done, based on the patients' characteristics and the mode of intervention used.

Results

Trial selection process

The initial search identified 187 articles, of which 182 were ruled out due to failure to meet the eligibility criteria (Fig. 1).

Characteristics of the trials included

Four randomized controlled trials were identified with 237 participants that met the inclusion criteria. All of the trials were double blind. The main characteristics of these trials are shown in Table 1. Lactated Ringer's was used as the "experimental" intervention, while NSS was used as the "control"; observation times and follow-up after renal transplantation were variable for the various trials, and hence the results of the measurements at similar time intervals were used to make them comparable.

When evaluating the risk of biases in the articles included, we found that most of them used computerized software for randomization. However, the Khajavi et al (3). trial is the exception as it fails to indicate how the randomization process was done. All of them used opaque envelopes to hide the allocation and a proper masking method was used in every case. The Modi et al (12). trial was classified as "ambiguous risk" due to missing information to rule out any detection, attrition and notification risks. Figs. 2 and 3 illustrate the bias risks.

The results considered for the analysis included the laboratory measurements during the perioperative period that the authors rated as most significant. The potassium difference was not significant at the end of surgery (mean difference (MD): -0.26 mEq/L; 95% CI: -0.58 to 0.05; p = 0.10; [I.sup.2] = 75%) although it was done through fixed effects; RL resulted in a lower value (Fig. 4).

The secondary results considered show that there is no difference in the Creatinine value expressed in mg/dL on the third postoperative day (MD: -0.05; 95% CI: -0.59 to 0.48; p = 0.85; [I.sup.2] = 0%) (Fig. 5).

With regard to the acid-base status, the NSS group exhibited higher acidosis, the pH was higher in the LR group (MD: 0.06; 95% CI: 0.05-0.08; p< 0.001; [I.sup.2] = 17%) (Fig. 6) and bicarbonate was also higher for the LR group (MD: 2.72; 95% CI: 1.74-3.69; p<0.001; [I.sup.2] = 0%) (Fig. 7). Chloride was lower during the postoperative period, though based on the random analysis method the value is not statistically significant (MD: 10.06; 95% CI: -20.37 to 0.25; p = 0.06; [I.sup.2] = 99%) (Fig. 8).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

There was no significant statistical difference in the fluid volume infused in liters (MD: -0.01; 95% CI: -0.31 to 0.29; p = 0.95; [I.sup.2] = 56%), though according to fixed methods, the LR group is higher (Fig. 9).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Discussion

Renal transplant has actually become one additional option for the treatment of chronic renal disease (15). The 5-year survival is 70%, while the survival for patients that continue on dialysis is only 30% (15-19). Patients undergoing renal transplant have multiple comorbidities, including cardiovascular (19), hypertension, dyslipidemia, hyperphosphatemia and hyperhomocysteinemia (20-23), in addition to pulmonary hypertension (24). This represents an anesthetic challenge for the perioperative period (25). According to the government data there were 2693 renal transplants in 2008, and 3691 in 2010; this shows a growing number of transplant procedures in the country (26,27). General anesthesia is currently the technique of choice; however, regional techniques have proven to be beneficial, particularly in terms of postoperative pain (28,29). An in-depth knowledge of the various surgical steps is critical to optimize the surgical conditions (30-32).

The use of large volumes of fluids during the intraoperative period has typically reported improved graft function (10,25,32-39).

Fluid therapy is a critical element in the intraoperative management of a patient undergoing renal transplantation (10,40), particularly because the multiple physiological and pathological variables increase the complexity of the procedure (41). Classically, the administration of large volumes of potassium solutions, such as LR, may lead to hyper potassemia and hence NSS (1) has been used instead; several studies indicate that NSS continues to be the choice for this procedure (2). Recent studies, however, suggest that more balanced approaches, such as LR, may prevent hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis (3-5), and this is not the case if large NSS volumes are used, as has been shown in other types of patients (4,8,42-45).

There is some controversy about the best type of crystalloids to use in a RT patient (46-48). The use of colloids in these patients is limited (48,34) and it is not recommended because of adverse events, including renal failure (49-52).

This meta-analysis showed that the administration of LR maybe an option for fluid management therapy in renal transplantation since contrary to old beliefs, this solution did not elicit higher hyperpotassemia or higher rates of graft dysfunction as shown by the fact that no differences were identified in the Creatinine values three days after surgery. The potassium difference was not significant at the end of surgery, though when fixed effects were used, LR showed a lower value (Fig. 4). Further analysis of this variable indicated that although there is significant heterogeneity in the results, such heterogeneity decreases upon removing the Khajavi et al. (3) trial; the explanation could be the difference in renal ischemia time that was loner in the NSS group. The presence of hyperpotassemia in the NSS group could be mainly explained because potassium acts as a buffer in the presence of acidosis. And, as mentioned above, the administration of large volumes of NSS causes hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis (4,8,42-45).

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

The meta-analysis confirms that the NSS causes metabolic acidosis, probably as a result of hyperchloremia, as illustrated in Figs. 6-8. The patients who received NSS had lower pH values and lover serum bicarbonate, and the data were not heterogeneous for the various trials. Serum chloride was higher in the NSS group, as compared against the patients receiving LR, though there is significant heterogeneity with this particular variable. It should be mentioned however that other anions such as sulfates and phosphates, inter alia, may accumulate in patients with chronic renal disease; nevertheless, crystalloids do not affect the concentration and chloride could be the key factor in the development of metabolic acidosis (52). To this date, several trials show that hyperchloremia per se could be the cause for an unfavorable outcome in renal function (44,45,52-54). The success in preventing perioperative complications includes proper patient identification and optimization, with an anesthetic plan that integrates the various variables affecting the evolution of the renal transplant. It should be highlighted however, that no significant differences were identified between the 2 groups in terms of amount of infused solution in the three trials analyzed; this certainly deserves some consideration since classically hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis has been associated with the infusion of large volumes of fluids. Further trials with larger numbers of patients and long-term follow-up are needed, in order to obtain a better understanding of the clinical implications of hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis.

The clinically relevant result, Creatinine levels at day 3, showed no differences between the two groups. This indicates that the administration of LR is safe for patients undergoing renal transplantation surgery. The heterogeneity of the trials is low in terms of this variable, making the result even stronger. No adverse effects were described in any of the trials using Lactated Ringer's therapy, so no conclusions can be made on this particular point.

This meta-analysis exhibits a number of limitations including the small number of trials and a small number of patients, in addition to differences in follow-up times and in the variables evaluated. The observation and follow-up times after renal transplantation varied among the various trials, but the results of the measurements used were from similar time intervals to make them comparable. The outcome that evaluates renal function using 3rd postoperative day Creatinine was only reported in three trials. This limits the interpretation of this variable, because the number of patients is further reduced. The heterogeneity of some of the variables was important; however, it is impossible to avoid heterogeneity in this type of trials, considering the differences in the populations evaluated, the respective treatment protocols and the duration of the trials. The Nuraei et al (13). trial was excluded because it was written in Farsi and despite numerous attempts to contact the authors, no replies were received. The exclusion criteria were strict and hence some patients with cardiovascular complications could have been excluded preventing a definite conclusion about this group of patients.

Nevertheless, this paper may still be the best available evidence to approach the issue of identifying the best fluid therapy option for patients undergoing kidney transplantation procedures.

Conclusion

The use of LR in the perioperative period of renal transplant procedures results in similar potassium levels during the postoperative period, higher pH and bicarbonate levels, and lower chloride, with no significant changes on the 3rd day postoperative Creatinine values, despite using a similar infusion volume as compared to NSS.

Ethical disclosures

Protection of human and animal subjects. The authors declare that no experiments were performed on humans or animals for this study.

Confidentiality of data. The authors declare that no patient data appear in this article.

Right to privacy and informed consent. The authors declare that no patient data appear in this article.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Funding

The authors did not receive sponsorship to undertake this article.

REFERENCES

(1.) O'Malley CM, Frumento RJ, Bennett-Guerrero E. Intravenous fluid therapy in renal transplant recipients: results of a US survey. Transplant Proc. 2002;34:3142-5.

(2.) O'Malley CM, Frumento RJ, Hardy MA, Benvenisty AI, Brentjens TE, Mercer JS, et al. A randomized, double-blind comparison of Lactated Ringer's solution and 0.9% NaCl during renal transplantation. Anesth Analg. 2005;100:1518-24.

(3.) Khajavi MR, Etezadi F, Moharari RS, Imani F Meysamie AP, Khashayar P et al. Effects of normal saline vs. Lactated Ringer's during renal transplantation. Ren Fail. 2008;30:535-9.

(4.) Scheingraber S, Rehm M, Sehmisch C, Finsterer U. Rapid saline infusion produces hyperchloremic acidosis in patients undergoing gynecologic surgery. Anesthesiology. 1999;90:1265-70.

(5.) Prough DS, Bidani A. Hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis is a predictable consequence of intraoperative infusion of 0.9% saline. Anesthesiology. 1999;90:1247-9.

(6.) Yunos NM, Bellomo R, Story D, Kellum J. Bench-to-bedside review: chloride in critical illness. Crit Care. 2010;14:226.

(7.) Kaufman D, Kitching AJ, Kellum JA. Acid-base balance. In: Principles of critical care. 3rd edition New York: Gregory & Hall, McGraw-Hill; 2005. p. 1201-8.

(8.) 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;88:999-1003.

(9.) Meier-Kriesche HU, Port FK, Ojo AO, Rudich SM, Hanson JA, Cibrik DM, et al. Effect of waiting time on renal transplant outcome. Kidney Int. 2000;58:1311-7.

(10.) Lemmens HJ. Kidney transplantation: recent developments and recommendations for anesthetic management. Anesthesiol Clin North Am. 2004;22:651-62.

(11.) Hadimioglu N, Saadawy I, Saglam T, Ertug Z, Dinckan A. The effect of different crystalloid solutions on acid-base balance and early kidney function after kidney transplantation. Anesth Analg. 2008;107:264-9.

(12.) Modi MP, Vora KS, Parikh GP, Shah VR. A comparative study of impact of infusion of Ringer's Lactate solution versus normal saline on acid-base balance and serum electrolytes during live related renal transplantation. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2012;23:135-7.

(13.) Nuraei N, Khajenouri R, Soleimani M, Dabbagh A. The effects of intraoperative normal saline versus Lactated Ringer solution on clinical outcomes and laboratory findings in renal transplant patients. Tehran Univ Med J. 2010;68:872-7.

(14.) Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 5.1.0. The Cochrane collaboration 2011. Available from: http://handbook.cochrane.org/ [Citado 06.02.14].

(15.) Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL, Ojo AO, Ettenger RE, Agodoa LY, et al. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1725-30.

(16.) Rabbat CG, Thorpe KE, Russell JD, Churchill DN. Comparison of mortality risk for dialysis patients and cadaveric first renal transplant recipients in Ontario, Canada. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2000;11:917-22.

(17.) Ojo AO, Hanson JA, Meier-Kriesche H, Okechukwu CN, Wolfe RA, Leichtman AB, et al. Survival in recipients of marginal cadaveric donor kidneys compared with other recipients and wait-listed transplant candidates. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2001;12:589-97.

(18.) Brunkhorst R, Lufft V, Dannenberg B, Kliem V, Tusch G, Pichlmayr R. Improved survival in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus after renal transplantation compared with hemodialysis a case-control study. Transplantation. 2003;76:115-9.

(19.) U.S. Renal Data System. USRDS 2013 annual data report: Atlas of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease in the United States, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, MD; 2013. Available from: http://www.usrds.org/adr.aspx [Citado 06.02.14].

(20.) Locatelli F, Bommer J, London GM, Martin-Malo A, Wanner C, Yaqoob M, et al. Cardiovascular disease determinants in chronic renal failure: clinical approach and treatment. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2001;16:459-68.

(21.) Arici M, Walls J. End-stage renal disease, atherosclerosis, and cardiovascular mortality: is C-reactive protein the missing link? Kidney Int. 2001;59:407-14.

(22.) Lagrand WK, Visser CA, Hermens WT, Niessen HW, Verheugt FW, Wolbink GJ, et al. C-reactive protein as a cardiovascular risk factor: more than an epiphenomenon? Circulation. 1999;100:96-102.

(23.) Yigla M, Nakhoul F, Sabag A, Tov N, Gorevich B, Abassi Z, et al. Pulmonary hypertension in patients with end-stage renal disease. Chest. 2003;123:1577-82.

(24.) Rivera D, Tejada JH, Medina A, Martinez E, Nieto N. Anesthesia complications in renal transplantation. Rev Colomb Anestesiol. 2011;39:30-7.

(25.) Social MdP. Informe de pacientes trasplantados por departamento y EPS en Colombia; 2008-2010. Available from: http://www.cuentadealtocosto.org/byblos/Docs/Informe _de_ trasplante _renal _en_Colombia_segun_Departamento_2011.pdf [Citado 06.02.14].

(26.) Cubillos J, Sandoval CL, Andrade E, Hermida NH. Causas que contribuyen a la perdida del trasplante renal de donante cadaverico en la fundacion Surcolombiana de Trasplantes. Febrero 2007 a noviembre 2012, Neiva, Colombia. Rev Colomb Anestesiol. 2014;42:83-9.

(27.) Hirata ES, Baghin MF, Pereira RI, Alves Filho G, Udelsmann A. Influence of the anesthetic technique on the hemodynamic changes in renal transplantation: a retrospective study. Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2009;59:166-76.

(28.) Bhosale G, Shah V. Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for renal transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2008;40:1122-4.

(29.) Humar A, Kerr SR, Ramcharan T, Gillingham KJ, Matas AJ. Peri-operative cardiac morbidity in kidney transplant recipients: incidence and risk factors. Clin Transplant. 2001;15:154-8.

(30.) Flechner SM. Current status of renal transplantation patient selection, results, and immunosuppression. Urol Clin North Am. 1994;21:265-82.

(31.) Luciani J, Frantz P Thibault P, Ghesquierre F Conseiller C, Cousin MT, et al. Early anuria prevention in human kidney transplantation Advantage of fluid load under pulmonary arterial pressure monitoring during surgical period. Transplantation. 1979;28:308-12.

(32.) Carlier M, Squifflet JP, Pirson Y Gribomont B, Alexandre GP. Maximal hydration during anesthesia increases pulmonary arterial pressures and improves early function of human renal transplants. Transplantation. 1982;34:201-4.

(33.) Thomsen HS, Lpkkegaard H, Munck O. Influence of normal central venous pressure on onset of function in renal allografts. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1987;21:143-5.

(34.) Dawidson IJ, Ar'Rajab A. Perioperative fluid and drug therapy during cadaver kidney transplantation. Clin Transpl. 1992:267-84.

(35.) Niemann CU, Eilers H. Abdominal organ transplantation. Minerva Anestesiol. 2010;76:266-75.

(36.) Marik PE, Baram M, Vahid B. Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares. Chest. 2008;134: 172-8.

(37.) Ferris RL, Kittur DS, Wilasrusmee C, Shah G, Krause E, Ratner L. Early hemodynamic changes after renal transplantation: determinants of low central venous pressure in the recipients and correlation with acute renal dysfunction. Med Sci Monit. 2003;9:CR61-6.

(38.) De Wilde RB, Schreuder JJ, van den Berg PC, Jansen JR. An evaluation of cardiac output by five arterial pulse contour techniques during cardiac surgery. Anaesthesia. 2007;62:760-8.

(39.) Feltracco P, Ori C. Anesthetic management of living transplantation Minerva Anestesiol. 2010;76:525-33.

(40.) Brandstrup B. Fluid therapy for the surgical patient. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2006;20:265-83.

(41.) McFarlane C, Lee A. A comparison of Plasmalyte 148 and 0.9% saline for intra-operative fluid replacement. Anaesthesia. 1994;49:779-81.

(42.) Waters JH, Gottlieb A, Schoenwald P, Popovich MJ, Sprung J, Nelson DR. Normal saline versus Lactated Ringer's solution for intraoperative fluid management in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: an outcome study. Anesth Analg. 2001;93:817-22.

(43.) Gan TJ, Bennett-Guerrero E, Phillips-Bute B, Wakeling H, Moskowitz DM, Olufolabi Y, et al. Hextend, a physiologically balanced plasma expander for large volume use in major surgery: a randomized phase III clinical trial. Hextend Study Group. Anesth Analg. 1999;88:992-8.

(44.) Wilcox CS. Regulation of renal blood flow by plasma chloride. J Clin Invest. 1983;71:726-35.

(45.) Ricaurte L, Vargas J, Lozano E, Diaz L, Organ Transplant Group. Anesthesia and kidney transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2013;45:1386-91.

(46.) Schmid S, Jungwirth B. Anaesthesia for renal transplant surgery: an update. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2012;29: 552-8.

(47.) Dawidson I, Peters P, Sagalowsky A, Abshier D, Coorpender L. The effect of intraoperative fluid management on the incidence of acute tubular necrosis. Transplant Proc. 1987;19:2056-7.

(48.) Willms CD, Dawidson IJ, Dickerman R, Drake D, Sandor ZF, Trevino G. Intraoperative blood volume expansion induces primary function after renal transplantation: a study of 96 paired cadaver kidneys. Transplant Proc. 1991;23:1338-9.

(49.) Bunn F, Alderson P Hawkins V. Colloid solutions for fluid resuscitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;1:CD001319. Review. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;1:CD001319.

(50.) Laxenaire MC, Charpentier C, Feldman L. Anaphylactoid reactions to colloid plasma substitutes: incidence, risk factors, mechanisms. A French multicenter prospective study. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 1994;13:301-10.

(51.) Wilcox CS, Peart WS. Release of renin and angiotensin II into plasma and lymph during hyperchloremia. Am J Physiol. 1987;253:F734-41.

(52.) Etezadi F Pourfakhr P, Mojtahedzade M, Najafi A, Moharari RS, Yarandi KK, et al. Effects of tight versus non tight control of metabolic acidosis on early renal function after kidney transplantation. Daru. 2012;20:36.

(53.) 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;117:412-21.

(54.) Gonzalez VH, Vargas JG, Echeverri JE, Diaz SM, Mena Y. Valoracion preanestesica en el paciente con enfermedad renal cronica (enfasis en riesgo cardiovascular). Rev Colomb Anestesiol. 2013;41:139-45.

Jorge Alejandro Trujillo-Zea (a), Natalia Aristizabal-Henao (b), Nelson Fonseca-Ruiz (c), *

(a) Anesthesiologist, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellin, Colombia

(b) Internist, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellin, Colombia

(c) Anesthesiologist, Intensivist, Epidemiologist, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellin, Colombia

ARTICLE INFO

Article history:

Received 19 March 2014

Accepted 8 March 2015

Available online 20 May 2015

** Please cite this article as: Trujillo-Zea JA, Aristizabal-Henao N, Fonseca-Ruiz N. Lactato de Ringer vs. Solucion salina normal para trasplante renal. Revision sistematica y metaanalisis. Rev Colomb Anestesiol. 2015;43:194-203.

* Corresponding author at: Calle 36 AA sur No. 25B-99 I 129, Medellin, Colombia.

E-mail address: nfonseca@une.net.co (N. Fonseca-Ruiz).
Table 1--Characteristics of the trials selected for the
meta-analysis.

Trial             Donor type       Participants        Interventions

O'Malley (2)      Living or    51 patients.           LR (n = 25) vs.
                  cadaver      Exclusion:             NSS (n = 26).
                               --<18 years old
                               --religious believes
                               that prevent the use
                               of blood products
                               --serum potas-
                               sium > 5.5 mEq/L
                               pre-surgery.

Hadimioglu (11)   Living       90 patients.           LR (n = 30) vs.
                               Exclusion:             NSS (n = 30)
                               --severe               vs.
                               cardiovascular         Plasmalyte
                               disease                (n = 30).
                               --liver failure
                               --diabetes
                               --serum
                               potassium > 5.5
                               mEq/L pre- surgery.

Khajavi (3)       Living       52 patients.           LR (n = 26) vs.
                               Exclusion:             NSS (n = 26).
                               --Serum
                               potassium > 6 mEq/L
                               pre-surgery.

Modi (12)         Living       74 patients.           LR (n = 37) vs.
                               Exclusion:             NSS (n = 37).
                               --severe
                               cardiovascular
                               disease
                               --liver failure
                               --diabetes mellitus
                               --potassium >
                               5.5 meq/L
                               pre-surgery

Trial                   Outcomes              Co-interventions

O'Malley (2)      Serum Creatinine at    Immunosuppression:
                  day 3 POP.             steroids, calcineurine and
                                         mycophenolate inhibitor or
                                         sirolimus.
                                         Routine radial artery
                                         catheter. Central venous
                                         catheter discretional.

Hadimioglu (11)   --Total daily urinary  Immunosuppression:
                  volume.                steroids, cyclosporine and
                  --Serum Creatinine     mycophenolate.
                  at day 3 POP           Heparin 5000IU IV.
                  --pH, bicarbonate      Radial artery catheter.
                  and potassium          Central venous catheter.
                  during the POP.        Maintenance fluids CVP
                  --Creatinine, BUN,     12-15 mmHg.
                  chloride, urinary
                  output, and
                  Creatinine clearance
                  at day 1, 2, 3, and 7

Khajavi (3)       --Serum potassium      Immunosuppression:
                  at the end of surgery. steroids, cyclosporine and
                  --pH at the end of     mycophenolate. Heparin
                  surgery.               5000 IU IV.
                                         Use of radial artery
                                         catheter. Central venous
                                         catheter.
                                         Infusion fluids 60 ml/kg for
                                         maintenance CVP
                                         10-15 mmHg.
Modi (12)         --Intraoperative and   Immunosuppression:
                  day 1 POP urinary      methylprednisolone,
                  output.                furosemide and mannitol.
                  --Serum Creatinine     Maintain CVP 12-15 mm
                  day 1 POP.             Management of acid-base
                  --pH change            complications and
                  --Intra and            hydro-electrolytic disorders
                  post-operative         at the anesthesiologist
                  bicarbonate and        discretion.
                  potassium

Source: Authors.

LR: Lactated Ringer's. NSS: Normal saline solution. POP:
postoperative. BUN: Blood urea nitrogen. CVP: central venous pressure.

Fig. 4--Postoperative serum potassium levels (mEq/L). (A) Fixed effect
analysis. (B) Random effect analysis.

A Fixed effect analysis

                           Lactato de ringer

Study or subgroup    Mean       SD      Total
                    [mEq/L]   [mEq/L]

O'Malley 2005          4.6       0.6       25
Handimioglu 2008       3.8       0.4       30
Khajavi 2008             4       0.8       26
Modi 2012             3.99      0.71       37

Total (95% CI)                          118
Heterogeneity: [Chi.sup.2]=12.13, df=3 (P=.007); [I.sup.2]=75%
Test for overall effect: Z=2.87 (P=.004)

                                   SSN

Study or subgroup    Mean       SD      Total
                    [mEq/L]   [mEq/L]

O'Malley 2005          4.5       0.8       26
Handimioglu 2008       3,9       0.4       30
Khajavi 2008           4.8       0.7       26
Modi 2012             4.31      0.59       37

Total (95% CI)                          119
Heterogeneity: [Chi.sup.2]=12.13, df=3 (P=.007); [I.sup.2]=75%
Test for overall effect: Z=2.87 (P=.004)

                                     Mean difference
Study or subgroup    Weight     IV, Fixed, 95% CI [mEq/L]    Year

O'Malley 2005         13.8%            0.10 [-0.29, 0.49]    2005
Handimioglu 2008      50.5%           -0.10 [-0.30, 0,10]    2008
Khajavi 2008          12.4%          -0.80 [-1.21, -0.39]    2008
Modi 2012             23.4%          -0.32 [-0.62, -0.02]    2012

Total (95% CI)       100.0%    -0.21 [-0.35, -0.07]
Heterogeneity: [Chi.sup.2]=12.13, df=3 (P=.007); [I.sup.2]=75%
Test for overall effect: Z=2.87 (P=.004)

B Random effect analysis

                           Lactato de ringer

Study or subgroup    Mean       SD      Total
                    [mEq/L]   [mEq/L]

O'Malley 2005          4.6       0.6       25
Handimioglu 2008       3.8       0.4       30
Khajavi 2008             4       0.8       26
Modi 2012             3.99      0.71       37

Total (95% CI)                            118
Heterogeneity: [Tau.sup.2]=0.07, [Chi.sup.2] =12.13, df=3 (P=.007);
  [I.sup.2]=75%
Test for overall effect: Z=1.65 (P=.10)

                                   SSN

Study or subgroup    Mean       SD      Total
                    [mEq/L]   [mEq/L]

O'Malley 2005          4.5       0.8       26
Handimioglu 2008       3,9       0.4       30
Khajavi 2008           4.8       0.7       26
Modi 2012             4.31      0.59       37

Total (95% CI)                            119
Heterogeneity: [Tau.sup.2]=0.07, [Chi.sup.2] =12.13, df=3 (P=.007);
  [I.sup.2]=75%
Test for overall effect: Z=1.65 (P=.10)

                                     Mean difference

Study or subgroup    Weight    IV, Random, 95% CI [mEq/L]    Year

                      22.4%            0.10 [-0.29, 0.49]    2005
O'Malley 2005         29.9%           -0.10 [-0.30, 0,10]    2008
Handimioglu 2008      21.6%          -0.80 [-1.21, -0.39]    2008
Khajavi 2008          26.1%          -0.32 [-0.62, -0.02]    2012
Modi 2012            100.0%           -0.26 [-0.58, 0.05]

Total (95% CI)
Heterogeneity: [Tau.sup.2]=0.07, [Chi.sup.2] =12.13, df=3 (P=.007);
  [I.sup.2]=75%
Test for overall effect: Z=1.65 (P=.10)

Source: Authors.

Fig. 5--Serum Creatinine level at day 3 after surgery (mg/dL).

                             Lactato ringer

Study or subgroup     Mean       SD      Total
                     [mg/dl]   [mg/dl]

O'Malley 2005           2.1       1,7       25
Khajavi 2008            2.2       2.2       26
Handimioglu 2008        1.8       1.4       30

Total (95% CI)                               81
Heterogeneity: [Chi.sup.2]=0.97, df=2 (P=.62); [I.sup.2]=0%
Test for overall effect: Z=0.19 (P=.85)

                                  SSN

Study or subgroup     Mean       SD      Total
                     [mg/dl]   [mg/dl]

O'Malley 2005           2.3       1.8       26
Khajavi 2008            1.9       0.7       26
Handimioglu 2008        2.1       2.2       30

Total (95% CI)                               82
Heterogeneity: [Chi.sup.2]=0.97, df=2 (P=.62); [I.sup.2]=0%
Test for overall effect: Z=0.19 (P=.85)

                                     Mean difference

Study or subgroup    Weight     IV, Fixed, 95% CI [mg/dl]    Year

O'Malley 2005         30.9%           -0.20 [-1.16, 0.76]    2005
Khajavi 2008          36.3%             0.30 [-059, 1.19]    2008
Handimioglu 2008      32.8%           -0.30 [-1.23, 0.63]    2008

Total (95% CI)        100.0%
Heterogeneity: [Chi.sup.2]=0.97, df=2 (P=.62); [I.sup.2]=0%
Test for overall effect: Z=0.19 (P=.85)

Source: Authors.

Fig. 6--Postoperative pH.

                          Lactato ringer              SSN

Study or subgroup    Mean     SD     Total    Mean     SD     Total

O'Malley 2005        7.37    0.07      25     7.28    0.07      26
Handimioglu 2008     7.42    0.06      30     7.36    0.05      30
Khajavi 2008         7.34    0.05      26     7.29    0.08      26

Total (95% CI)                         81                       82

                                 Mean difference

Study or subgroup    Weight     IV, Fixed, 95% CI     Year

O'Malley 2005         24.9%     0.09 [0.05, 0.13]     2005
Handimioglu 2008      47.1%     0.06 [0.03, 0.09]     2008
Khajavi 2008          28.0%     0.05 [0.01, 0.09]     2008

Total (95% CI)       100.0%     0.06 [0.05, 0.08]

Heterogeneity: [Chi.sup.2]=2.40, df=2 (P=.30); [I.sup.2]=17%
Test for overall effect: Z=6.61 (P<.00001)

Source: Authors.

Fig. 7--Post-surgical Arterial blood bicarbonate levels [mEq/L].

                            Lactato ringer

Study or subgroup      Mean        SD    Total
                     [mEq/L]   [mEq/L]

O'Malley 2005            21         4       25
Handimioglu 2008      21,41       3.7       30
Modi 2012             21.62      3.56       37
Total (95% CI)                              92
Heterogeneity: [Chi.sup.2]=0.96, df=2 (P=.62); [I.sup.2]=0%
Test for overall effect: Z=5.48 (P<.00001)

                                 SSN

Study or subgroup      Mean        SD    Total
                     [mEq/L]   [mEq/L]

O'Malley 2005            18         3       26
Handimioglu 2008       18.2       2.9       30
Modi 2012             19.47      3.02       37
Total (95% CI)                              93
Heterogeneity: [Chi.sup.2]=0.96, df=2 (P=.62); [I.sup.2]=0%
Test for overall effect: Z=5.48 (P<.00001)

                                     Mean difference

Study or subgroup    Weight     IV, Fixed, 95% CI [mEq/L]    Year

O'Malley 2005         24.9%         3.00 [1.05, 4.95]        2005
Handimioglu 2008      33.4%         3.21 [1.53, 4.89]        2008
Modi 2012             41.7%         2.15 [0.65, 3.65]        2012
Total (95% CI)       100.0%         2.72 [1.74, 3.69]
Heterogeneity: [Chi.sup.2]=0.96, df=2 (P=.62); [I.sup.2]=0%
Test for overall effect: Z=5.48 (P<.00001)

Source: Authors.

Fig. 8--Post-surgical chloride levels [mEq/L]. (A) Fixed effect
analysis. (B) Random effect analysis.

A Fixed effect analysis

                               Favorece [LR]

Study or subgroup      Mean        SD      Total
                     [mEq/L]    [mEq/L]

O'Malley 2005            106          4       25
Handimioglu 2008       105.7        1.3       30
Modi 2012               98.5       3.03       37
Total (95% CI)                                92
Heterogeneity: [Chi.sup.2]=212.85, df=2 (P<.00001); [I.sup.2]=99%
Test for overall effect: Z=24.57 (P<.00001)

                                  SSN

Study or subgroup      Mean        SD      Total
                     [mEq/L]    [mEq/L]

O'Malley 2005            111          4       26
Handimioglu 2008       125.4        3.7       30
Modi 2012             103.92       4.28       37
Total (95% CI)                                93
Heterogeneity: [Chi.sup.2]=212.85, df=2 (P<.00001); [I.sup.2]=99%
Test for overall effect: Z=24.57 (P<.00001)

                                      Mean difference

Study or subgroup     Weight     IV, Fixed, 95% CI [mEq/L]    Year

O'Malley 2005          19.5%          -5.00 [-7.20, -2.80]    2005
Handimioglu 2008       47.7%       -19.70 [-21.10, -18.30]    2008
Modi 2012              32.9%          -5.42 [-7.11, -3.73]    2012
Total (95% CI)        100.0%       -12.14 [-13.11, -11.18]
Heterogeneity: [Chi.sup.2]=212.85, df=2 (P<.00001); [I.sup.2]=99%
Test for overall effect: Z=24.57 (P<.00001)

B Random effect analysis

                             Favorece [LR]

Study or subgroup      Mean        SD      Total
                     [mEq/L]    [mEq/L]

O'Malley 2005          106         4         25
Handimioglu 2008      105.7       1.3        30
Modi 2012              98.5       3.03       37
Total (95% CI)                               92
Heterogeneity: [Tau.sup.2]=82.18, [Chi.sup.2]=212.85, df=2 (P<.00001);
  [I.sup.2]=99%
Test for overall effect: Z=1.91 (P=.06)

                                  SSN

Study or subgroup      Mean        SD      Total
                     [mEq/L]    [mEq/L]

O'Malley 2005          111         4          26
Handimioglu 2008      125.4       3.7         30
Modi 2012             103.92      4.28        37
Total (95% CI)                                93
Heterogeneity: [Tau.sup.2]=82.18, [Chi.sup.2]=212.85, df=2 (P<.00001);
  [I.sup.2]=99%
Test for overall effect: Z=1.91 (P=.06)

                                      Mean difference

Study or subgroup    Weight     IV, Random, 95% CI [mEq/L]    Year

O'Malley 2005          33.2%          -5.00 [-7.20, -2.80]    2005
Handimioglu 2008       33.5%       -19.70 [-21.10, -18.30]    2008
Modi 2012              33.4%          -5.42 [-7.11, -3.73]    2012

Total (95% CI)        100.0%        -10.06 [-20.37, -0.25]
Heterogeneity: [Tau.sup.2]=82.18, [Chi.sup.2]=212.85, df=2 (P<.00001);
  [I.sup.2]=99%
Test for overall effect: Z=1.91 (P=.06)

Source: Authors.

Fig. 9--Volume of infused solution in liters. (A) Fixed effect
analysis. (B) Random effect analysis.

A Fixed effect analysis

                             Lactato ringer

Study or subgroup        Mean          SD    Total
                     [Litros]    [Litros]

O'Malley 2005             5.6         1.4       25
Handimioglu 2008         2.77        0.82       30
Modi 2012                5.25         0.1       37
Total (95% CI)                                  92
Heterogeneity: [Chi.sup.2]=4.51, df=2 (P=.10); [I.sup.2]=56%
Test for overall effect: Z=6.26 (P=.00001)

                                   SSN

Study or subgroup        Mean          SD    Total
                     [Litros]    [Litros]

O'Malley 2005             6.1         1.2       25
Handimioglu 2008         2.87        0.78       30
Modi 2012                 5.1         0.1       37
Total (95% CI)                                  92
Heterogeneity: [Chi.sup.2]=4.51, df=2 (P=.10); [I.sup.2]=56%
Test for overall effect: Z=6.26 (P=.00001)

                                     Mean difference

Study or subgroup    Weight     IV, Fixed, 95% CI [Litros]    Year

O'Malley 2005          0.4%            -0.50 [-1.22, 0.22]    2005
Handimioglu 2008       1.2%            -0.10 [-0.50, 0,30]    2008
Modi 2012             98.4%              0.15 [0.10, 0.20]    2012
Total (95% CI)       100.0%              0.14 [0.10, 0.19]
Heterogeneity: [Chi.sup.2]=4.51, df=2 (P=.10); [I.sup.2]=56%
Test for overall effect: Z=6.26 (P=.00001)

B Random effect analysis

                             Lactato ringer

Study or subgroup        Mean          SD    Total
                     [Litros]    [Litros]

O'Malley 2005             5.6         1.4       25
Handimioglu 2008         2.77        0.82       30
Modi 2012                5.25         0.1       37
Total (95% CI)                                  92
Heterogeneity: [Tau.sup.2]=0.04, [Chi.sup.2] =4.51, df=2 (P=.10);
  [I.sup.2]=56%
Test for overall effect: Z=0.07 (P=.95)

                                   SSN

Study or subgroup        Mean          SD    Total
                     [Litros]    [Litros]

O'Malley 2005             6.1         1.2       25
Handimioglu 2008         2.87        0.78       30
Modi 2012                 5,1         0.1       37
Total (95% CI)                                  92
Heterogeneity: [Tau.sup.2]=0.04, [Chi.sup.2] =4.51, df=2 (P=.10);
  [I.sup.2]=56%
Test for overall effect: Z=0.07 (P=.95)

                                     Mean difference

Study or subgroup    Weight    IV, Random, 95% CI [Litros]    Year

O'Malley 2005         13.6%            -0.50 [-1.22, 0.22]    2005
Handimioglu 2008      28.7%            -0.10 [-0.50, 0.30]    2008
Modi 2012             57.7%              0.15 [0.10, 0.20]    2012
Total (95% CI)       100.0%           -0.01 [-0.31, -0.29]
Heterogeneity: [Tau.sup.2]=0.04, [Chi.sup.2] =4.51, df=2 (P=.10);
  [I.sup.2]=56%
Test for overall effect: Z=0.07 (P=.95)

Source: Authors.
COPYRIGHT 2015 Sociedad Colombiana de Anestesiologia y Reanimacion
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Scientific and Technological Research
Author:Trujillo-Zea, Jorge Alejandro; Aristizabal-Henao, Natalia; Fonseca-Ruiz, Nelson
Publication:Revista Colombiana de Anestesiologia
Date:Jul 1, 2015
Words:6284
Previous Article:Implicaciones anestesicas del Sindrome de Cimitarra para cirugia no cardiaca.
Next Article:Equilibrio acido-base: el mejor enfoque clinico.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters