Oral/enteral fluid resuscitation in the initial management of major burns: A systematic review and meta-analysis of human and animal studies - Hsiao, K. H.; Kalanzi, J.; Watson, S. B.; Murthy, S.; Movsisyan, A.; Kothari, K.; Salio, F.; Relan, P. (Burns Open, 2024)
BACKGROUND: Timely and safe intravenous (IV) fluid resuscitation for major burns may be difficult or impossible during mass casualty burn incidents. Oral/enteral fluid resuscitation may be an alternative. OBJECTIVES: To synthesize and assess certainty of evidence on oral/enteral fluid resuscitation as compared to IV or no fluid resuscitation for major burns. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched on 8 September 2023. Primary quantitative studies meeting criteria as assessed by two reviewers were included. Meta-analyses for outcome effects of oral/enteral versus IV and of oral/enteral versus no fluid resuscitation were conducted. Evidence certainty was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: Seven human and eight animal studies were included. Three human RCTs totalling 100 participants contributed to estimates. Compared to IV fluid resuscitation, oral/enteral fluid resuscitation is associated with a statistically insignificant increased risk of mortality (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.33-5.36) but the evidence is very uncertain, and no difference in urine output (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.65-0.31) with moderate certainty of evidence. Eight controlled animal studies totalling 212 participants contributed to estimates. From these animal studies, enteral fluid resuscitation may increase mortality (OR 36.00, 95% CI 2.72-476.28), worsen creatinine levels (MD 22 mmol/L, 95% CI 15.8-28.2), and increase urine output (MD 1 ml/kg/h, 95% CI 0.55-1.45) compared to IV, but all with very low certainty of evidence. Again, from animal studies, all the evidence is very uncertain, but compared to no fluid resuscitation, enteral resuscitation is associated with a statistically insignificant reduction in mortality (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.08-1.09), improved creatinine levels (SMD -3.48, 95% CI -4.69 to -2.28), and increased urine output (MD 0.55 ml/kg/h, 95% CI 0.38-0.72). CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence comparing oral/enteral and IV fluid resuscitation for major burns is limited and uncertain. However, where IV fluid resuscitation is unavailable or delayed, oral fluid resuscitation could be considered.
Keywords: journalArticle; Burns; Fluid therapy; Intravenous fluid; Mass casualty incidents; Oral fluid; Oral rehydration solution; personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in; this paper