BMJ 2006;333:1044 (18 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.38985.398704.7C (published 13 October 2006)
Research
Effect of baseline serum albumin concentration on outcome of resuscitation with albumin or saline in patients in intensive care units: analysis of data from the saline versus albumin fluid evaluation (SAFE) study
Correspondence to: Professor S Finfer, Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group, Carlton, Vic 3053, Australia sfinfer{at}george.org.au
Abstract
Objective To determine whether
outcomes of resuscitation with albumin or saline in the intensive
care unit depend on patients' baseline serum albumin concentration.
Design Analysis of data from a double blind, randomised controlled trial.
Setting Intensive care units of 16 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand.
Participants 6045 participants in the saline versus albumin fluid evaluation (SAFE) study.
Interventions Fluid resuscitation with 4% albumin or saline in patients with a baseline serum albumin concentration of 25 g/l or less or more than 25 g/l.
Main outcome measures Primary outcome was all cause mortality at 28 days. Secondary outcomes were length of stay in the intensive care unit, length of stay in hospital, duration of renal replacement therapy, and duration of mechanical ventilation.
Main results The odds ratios for death for albumin compared with saline for patients with a baseline serum albumin concentration of 25 g/l or less and more than 25 g/l were 0.87 and 1.09, respectively (ratio of odds ratios 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.02); P=0.08 for heterogeneity. No significant interaction was found between baseline serum albumin concentration as a continuous variable and the effect of albumin and saline on mortality. No consistent interaction was found between baseline serum albumin concentration and treatment effects on length of stay in the intensive care unit, length of hospital stay, duration of renal replacement therapy, or duration of mechanical ventilation.
Conclusion The outcomes of resuscitation with albumin and saline are similar irrespective of patients' baseline serum albumin concentration.
Trial registration ISRCTN76588266
[controlled-trials.com]
.
Introduction
Intravenous fluid is fundamental to the management
of patients in intensive care units. The two broad categories
of fluid available are colloids and crystalloids. Among colloids,
human albumin is unique in being a major human plasma protein
that has important physiological roles.
1 2 3 4 As hypoalbuminaemia
is common in acute illness and is associated with an increased
risk of death,
5 the use of albumin to simultaneously treat hypoalbuminaemia
and to increase intravascular volume seems intuitively attractive.
A meta-analysis by the 1998 Cochrane Albumin Reviewers, however,
suggested that giving albumin to critically ill patients for
the treatment of both hypovolaemia and hypoalbuminaemia increased
the risk of mortality.
6 Subsequently the saline versus albumin
fluid evaluation (SAFE) study reported no important difference
in the overall risk of death for adults given albumin or saline
for intravascular fluid resuscitation in intensive care units.
7 8 In an updated meta-analysis incorporating
data from the saline versus albumin fluid evaluation study,
the Cochrane Injuries Group Albumin Reviewers concluded that
there is no evidence that albumin reduces the risk of mortality
in critically ill patients but a suggestion that it may increase
the risk of death in patients with hypoalbuminaemia and burns.
9 Thus while the saline versus albumin fluid evaluation study
provides greater certainty over the effect of resuscitation
with albumin or saline in a heterogeneous population of patients
in intensive care units, effects in more selected populations
of critically ill patients remain unknown. Using data from the
saline versus albumin fluid evaluation study, we determined
whether outcomes are influenced by baseline serum albumin concentration
and whether either fluid can be recommended on the basis of
patients' baseline serum albumin concentration.
Methods
Details of the saline versus albumin fluid evaluation
study have been published elsewhere.
7 8 The
double blind, randomised controlled trial was carried out in
the multidisciplinary intensive care units of 16 hospitals in
Australia and New Zealand between November 2001 and June 2003.
Eligible adults were randomly assigned to receive either 4% albumin (Albumex; CSL, Melbourne, Australia) or normal saline for all fluid resuscitation in the intensive care unit until death, discharge, or 28 days after randomisation. Patients were excluded who had been admitted to the intensive care unit after cardiac surgery or liver transplantation or for the treatment of burns.
The primary outcome was all cause mortality within 28 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes were length of stay in the intensive care unit, length of stay in hospital, duration of mechanical ventilation, and duration of renal replacement therapy.
Statistical analysis
We used 2 tests for categorical variables and t tests or analysis of variance for continuous variables to assess the association of baseline variables, including baseline albumin concentration, with mortality at 28 days. Baseline covariates were then fitted to logistic regression models to determine those independently associated with mortality.
We examined baseline albumin concentration as a binary variable using a predetermined cut-off (25 g/l or >25 g/l), and as a continuous variable. We assessed the effect of treatment allocation and baseline albumin concentration on 28 day mortality using logistic regression; we used the interaction between baseline albumin concentration and treatment assignment to examine whether the risk of death for those assigned to albumin compared with those assigned to saline was consistent between different baseline albumin concentrations. Initially we carried out the logistic regression without adjustment for other baseline risk factors; then adjusted for those covariates significant at the P<0.10 level. We excluded central venous pressure and urine output owing to missing values (3136 for central venous pressure and 871 for urine output). We also examined the heterogeneity of treatment effect on the secondary outcomes of the saline versus albumin fluid evaluation study.
Results
The treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics,
published previously.
8 Data on baseline serum albumin concentration
were available for 6045 patients, 3014 of those assigned to
albumin and 3031 assigned to saline. No difference was found
in the distribution of baseline serum albumin concentration
by treatment group (P=0.76).
The distribution of baseline characteristics within each stratum of baseline albumin concentration (25 g/l or >25 g/l) was similar in those assigned to albumin and those assigned to saline (table 1).
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 1 Baseline characteristics of patients in intensive care units assigned to albumin or saline, stratified by baseline serum albumin concentrations (25 g/l or >25 g/l). Values are numbers (percentages) of patients unless stated otherwise
|
|
Overall 2451 (40.5%) patients had a baseline
serum albumin concentration of 25 g/l or less (1228 patients
(50.1%) in the albumin group and 1223 patients (49.9%) in the
saline group). Compared with patients with a baseline serum
albumin concentration of more than 25 g/l (n=3594), those with
a concentration of 25 g/l or less were older and were more likely
to be admitted to the intensive care unit after surgery, more
likely to have severe sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome,
and less likely to have had traumatic brain injury. Severity
of illness, as assessed by the acute physiology and chronic
health evaluation II score,
10 was similar in patients with a
baseline serum albumin concentration of 25 g/l or less or more
than 25 g/l (table 2
).
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 2 Comparison of baseline characteristics of patients in saline versus albumin fluid evaluation study with baseline serum albumin concentration 25 g/l or less or more than 25 g/l. Values are numbers (percentages) of patients unless stated otherwise
|
|
The primary outcome measure (mortality at 28
days) and baseline serum albumin concentration were available
for 6040 (99.9%) patients.
Baseline serum albumin concentration as both a binary and a continuous variable was independently associated with mortality. Other baseline factors independently associated with mortality were age, reason for admission to the intensive care unit, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score, liver and cardiovascular components of the sequential organ failure assessment score,11 mechanical ventilation at baseline, and heart rate (P<0.10).
After adjusting for baseline risk factors for death, a baseline serum albumin concentration of 25 g/l or less was independently associated with risk of death (odds ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.16 to 1.51, P=0.0009). The findings were similar (table 3) when baseline serum albumin concentration was treated as a continuous variable (odds per 1 g/l decrease in baseline serum albumin concentration 1.02, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.03, P<0.0001).
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 3 Multivariate analysis of association of baseline characteristics (including baseline serum albumin concentration) and assigned group (albumin or saline) with risk of death
|
|
Patients assigned to albumin had a higher mean
serum albumin concentration during the first seven days after
randomisation (fig 1
). This difference was apparent for patients
with a baseline serum albumin concentration of 25 g/l or less
or more than 25 g/l (P<0.0001 for both). On average, patients
assigned to albumin received a lower daily volume of resuscitation
fluid than patients assigned to saline (table 4
).
View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[PowerPoint Slide for Teaching]
|
Fig 1 Effect of fluid resuscitation with albumin or saline on mean serum albumin concentration for seven days after randomisation stratified by baseline serum albumin concentration (25 g/l or >25 g/l). Error bars indicate standard deviation
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 4 Volume of albumin or saline administered per day for first seven days in intensive care by treatment group and baseline serum albumin concentration
|
|
Patient outcomes
Among patients with a serum albumin concentration
of 25 g/l or less, deaths occurred in 291 (23.7%) assigned to
albumin and 321 (26.2%) assigned to saline (odds ratio 0.87,
95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.05, P=0.14). In patients with
a serum albumin concentration of more than 25 g/l, deaths occurred
in 353 (19.8%) assigned to albumin and 334 (18.5%) assigned
to saline (odds ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to
1.28, P=0.33; fig 2
and table 5
). The ratio of the odds ratios
for patients with a baseline serum albumin concentration of
25 g/l or less and of more than 25 g/l was 0.80 (95% confidence
interval 0.63 to 1.02). After adjustment for baseline risk factors
for death (table 3
), the odds ratios for death of patients with
a baseline serum albumin concentration of 25 g/l or less and
more than 25 g/l given albumin compared with saline were 0.84
and 1.15, respectively (ratio of odds ratios 0.73, 95% confidence
interval 0.55 to 0.97). The P values for heterogeneity of treatment
effects between those with baseline serum albumin concentration
of 25 g/l or less and of more than 25 g/l with and without adjustment
for baseline risk factors (P values not adjusted for multiple
comparisons) were 0.08 and 0.04, respectively (fig 2
and table
5
). When baseline serum albumin concentration was treated as
a continuous variable, no significant interaction was found
between baseline concentration and treatment assignment for
28 day mortality (unadjusted P=0.73, adjusted P=0.94). No significant
interaction was found between baseline serum albumin concentration
and treatment group for length of stay in the intensive care
unit, duration of mechanical ventilation, and duration of renal
replacement therapy (P values 0.50, 0.85, and 0.33, respectively),
but an interaction of borderline significance was found for
length of hospital stay (P=0.05 without correction for multiple
hypothesis testing; table 5
).
View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[PowerPoint Slide for Teaching]
|
Fig 2 Unadjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of death in all patients and in subgroups with baseline serum albumin concentration of 25 g/l or less and of more than 25 g/l. (Heterogeneity of treatment effect in subgroups with baseline serum albumin concentration 25 g/l v >25 g/l, P=0.08)
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 5 Primary and secondary outcomes stratified by baseline serum albumin concentration 25 g/l or less and more than 25 g/l. Values are means (standard deviations) unless stated otherwise
|
|
Discussion
Our study does not provide evidence that the
effect of resuscitation with albumin compared with saline in
the intensive care unit is different in patients with different
baseline serum albumin concentrations. Nor does it provide evidence
to support the suggestion that albumin increases the risk of
mortality in patients with hypoalbuminaemia. When the odds ratios
for death was compared in patients with a baseline serum albumin
concentration of 25 g/l or less or of more than 25 g/l we found
only limited evidence that treatment effects were different
and this only after correction for other baseline risk factors.
When we considered the effect of baseline serum albumin concentration
as a continuous variable across the spectrum of albumin concentrations,
baseline concentration had no impact on the treatment effect
even after correction for other baseline risk factors. Taken
together these results suggest that albumin and saline produce
similar treatment effects across the range of albumin concentrations
observed in our study.
A recent meta-analysis assessed the effect of resuscitation with albumin or other fluids on outcomes other than mortality. The authors included 71 trials, which randomised 3782 acutely ill adults, children, and neonatal patients and concluded that albumin significantly reduced overall morbidity.12 This contrasts with the findings of the saline versus albumin fluid evaluation study in which there were no significant differences in morbidity in patients resuscitated with either albumin or saline.8 In the current analysis we found no interaction between baseline serum albumin concentration and choice of resuscitation fluid for length of stay in the intensive care unit, duration of renal replacement therapy, or duration of mechanical ventilation. We found borderline evidence of an interaction for length of hospital stay; patients with a baseline serum albumin concentration more than 25 g/l who were resuscitated with albumin had a shorter hospital stay (mean difference 0.6 days). In the absence of any other significant heterogeneity, we interpret this as a chance finding.
The strengths of our study are the size and methodological strengths of the saline versus albumin fluid evaluation study, a double blind randomised controlled trial that has been recognised as a high quality landmark study and which contributed 82.8% of the data for the latest Cochrane meta-analysis.9 13 The limitations are the inherent weaknesses of subgroup analyses and that the saline versus albumin fluid evaluation study was not primarily designed to determine the effect of treating hypoalbuminaemia with albumin. In the saline versus albumin fluid evaluation study, patients received the amount of fluid the treating clinician thought necessary to restore or maintain intravascular volume, and albumin was not given to achieve or maintain a particular serum albumin concentration. Patients assigned to albumin maintained higher serum albumin concentrations but this was not associated with clear benefit. Administering albumin to achieve and maintain a greater increase in serum albumin concentration, for instance to more than 30 g/l, has been advocated4; whether this would improve patients outcomes requires an appropriately designed trial. Although recognising the limitations of our analysis, the 2004 Cochrane review reported only 637 patients and 86 deaths from 10 trials of patients treated for hypoalbuminaemia; six trials (451 patients) were in adults.9 Of the 6997 adults in the saline versus albumin fluid evaluation study, 2451 had a recorded baseline serum albumin concentration of 25 g/l or less of whom 612 died. Our analysis provides most of the available data on the effect of albumin administration to adults with hypoalbuminaemia in an intensive care unit, and so may provide a more reliable estimate of the treatment effect of albumin than the data on which the 2004 Cochrane review is based.
In conclusion, resuscitation with albumin and saline in the intensive care unit produces similar patient outcomes irrespective of patients' baseline serum albumin concentrations. Although albumin does not increase the risk of mortality, evidence is insufficient to support the routine use of albumin to maintain or increase intravascular volume in adults with hypoalbuminaemia in intensive care units. Whether administering albumin to adults in intensive care units to maintain a particular serum albumin concentration would be beneficial could only be answered by an appropriately designed trial. Our data suggest that any benefit (or harm) would be small and so a very large trial would be required.
What is already known on this topic
- Administering albumin may increase the risk of death in critically ill patients with hypoalbuminaemia
What this study adds
- Irrespective of patients' baseline serum albumin concentration, fluid resuscitation with albumin or saline produced similar outcomes
- Although albumin does not increase the risk of mortality in patients with hypoalbuminaemia, data do not support its routine use to maintain or increase intravascular volume in critically ill adults
| |
Contributors: Investigators for the saline versus
albumin fluid evaluation study are: writing committeeSimon
Finfer (chair), Rinaldo Bellomo, Suzanne McEvoy, Sing Kai Lo,
John Myburgh, Bruce Neal, and Robyn Norton; management committeeRobyn
Norton (chair), Julie French (senior project manager), Rinaldo
Bellomo, Simon Finfer, John Myburgh, Suzanne McEvoy, Gordon
Doig, Mary Hayek, and Sheridan O'Donnell; steering committeeSimon
Finfer (chair), Anthony Bell, Rinaldo Bellomo, Neil Boyce, David
Blythe, John Cade, Marianne Chapman, Louise Cole, James Cooper,
Andrew Davies, Craig French, Julie French, Christopher Joyce,
Colin McArthur, Stephen MacMahon, John Myburgh, Bruce Neal,
Robyn Norton, Jeffrey Presneill, Peter Saul, Ian Seppelt, Dianne
Stephens, Andrew Turner, Anthony Williams, and Clive Woolfe;
and external safety and data monitoring committeeRichard
Peto (chair), Peter Sandercock, Charles Sprung, and J Duncan
Young. The statistical analysis was carried out by Sing Kai
Lo, Siva Sivarajasingham, Lesley Francis, and Mark Woodward
(George Institute for International Health, University of Sydney,
NSW). The site investigators were: Julie Charlton, James Cooper,
Andrew Davies, Catherine Harry, Lisa Higgins, Katherine Moulden,
and Shirley Vallance (Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Vic); Janine
Chadderton, Lynette Newby, and Colin McArthur (Auckland Hospital,
New Zealand); Samantha Bates, Rinaldo Bellomo, Donna Goldsmith,
and Alison Voss (Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre, Melbourne,
Vic); Neil Boyce (Australian Red Cross Blood Service, Melbourne,
Vic); David Blythe and Annamaria Palermo (Fremantle Hospital,
WA); Lesley Francis, Julie French, Mary Hayek, Kathy Jayne,
Stephen MacMahon, Mamta Merai, Bruce Neal, Robyn Norton, Sameer
Pandey, Sheridan O'Donnell, Manuela Schmidt, Siva Sivarajasingham,
and Mark Woodward (George Institute for International Health,
University of Sydney, NSW); Rosemary Carroll, Brett McFadyen,
and Peter Saul (John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, NSW); Jane
Clarke, Juliet Powell, Anthony Williams, and Judi Tai (Middlemore
Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand); Louise Cole, Iveta Hynesova,
Ian Seppelt, and Leonie Weisbrodt (Nepean Hospital, Penrith,
NSW); Lisa Bradley, Christopher Joyce, Theresa Kelly, Anthony
Limpus, and Robyn Moore (Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane,
Qld); Marianne Chapman, Stephanie Creed, Sandra Kaplan, and
Justine Rivett (Royal Adelaide Hospital, SA); Dianne Stephens
and Jane Thomas (Royal Darwin Hospital, NT); Anthony Bell, Kathy
Marsden, and Andrew Turner (Royal Hobart Hospital, Tas); Catherine
Boyce, John Cade, Belinda Howe, Jeffrey Presneill, and Megan
Robertson (Royal Melbourne Hospital, Vic); Gordon Doig, Simon
Finfer, Anne O'Connor, Julie Potter, and Naresh Ramakrishnan
(Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW); Catherine Powell,
Dorrilyn Rajbhandari, and Clive Woolfe (Royal Prince Alfred
Hospital, Sydney, NSW); Kathryn Girling, Marie Hodgetts, Alina
Jovanovska, and John Myburgh (St George Hospital, Sydney, NSW);
and Craig French and Lorraine Little (Western Hospital, Melbourne,
Vic). The saline versus albumin fluid evaluation study is a
collaboration of the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care
Society Clinical Trials Group, the Australian Red Cross Blood
Service, and the George Institute for International Health.
The writing committee will act as guarantor.
Funding: Auckland District Health Board, New Zealand; Australian Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care; CSL, Melbourne, Victoria; Middlemore Hospital, New Zealand; Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; Health Department of Western Australia; Health Research Council of New Zealand; New South Wales Health Department; Northern Territory Health Services; Queensland Health Services Department; Royal Hobart Hospital, Tasmania; South Australian Department of Human Services; and Victorian Department of Human Services
Competing interests: The saline versus albumin fluid evaluation study was part funded by CSL. CSL has acted as a sponsor for scientific meetings of the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society and its clinical trials group. CSL has paid travel expenses for Simon Finfer and Rinaldo Bellomo to present the results of the SAFE study at scientific and industry sponsored meetings. Andrew Davies and Diane Stephens own shares in CSL.
Ethical approval: This study was approved by the ethics committees of the University of Sydney and of each of the participating institutions.
References
- Martin GS, Mangialardi RJ, Wheeler AP, Dupont WD, Morris JA, Bernard GR. Albumin and furosemide therapy in hypoproteinemic patients with acute lung injury. Crit Care Med 2002;30:2175-82.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
- Nicholson JP, Wolmarans MR, Park GR. The role of albumin in critical illness. Br J Anaesth 2000;85:599-610.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Quinlan GJ, Mumby S, Martin GS, Bernard GR, Gutteridge JM, Evans TW. Albumin influences total plasma antioxidant capacity favorably in patients with acute lung injury. Crit Care Med 2004;32:755-9.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
- Vincent JL, Dubois MJ, Navickis RJ, Wilkes MM. Hypoalbuminemia in acute illness: is there a rationale for intervention? A meta-analysis of cohort studies and controlled trials. Ann Surg 2003;237:319-34.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
- Goldwasser P, Feldman J. Association of serum albumin and mortality risk. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:693-703.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
- Cochrane Injuries Group Albumin Reviewers. Human albumin administration in critically ill patients: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 1998;317:235-40.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- ANZICS Clinical Trials Group and Institute for International Health SAFE Study Investigators. The saline vs. albumin fluid evaluation (SAFE) study (ISRCTN76588266): Design and conduct of a multi-centre, blinded randomised controlled trial of intravenous fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients. http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7389/559/DC1 (accessed 16 Mar 2006).
- The SAFE Study Investigators. A comparison of albumin and saline for fluid resuscitation in the intensive care unit. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2247-56.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Human albumin solution for resuscitation and volume expansion in critically ill patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;(4):CD001208.pub2.
- Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 1985;13:818-29.[ISI][Medline]
- Vincent JL, de Mendonca A, Cantraine F, Moreno R, Takala J, Suter PM, Use of the SOFA score to assess the incidence of organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care units: results of a multicenter, prospective study. Working group on "sepsis-related problems" of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Crit Care Med 1998;26:1793-800.[ISI][Medline]
- Vincent JL, Navickis RJ, Wilkes MM. Morbidity in hospitalized patients receiving human albumin: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Crit Care Med 2004;32:2029-38.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
- Cook D. Is albumin safe? N Engl J Med 2004;350:2294-6.[Free Full Text]
(Accepted 12 September 2006)
CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati What's this?
Related Articles
-
Baseline serum albumin concentrations do not affect resuscitation outcomes
BMJ 2006 333: 0.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
-
US Highlights
- Douglas Kamerow
BMJ 2006 333: 0.
[Extract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
-
Resuscitation using albumin in critically ill patients: Research in patients at high risk of complications is now needed
- J L Vincent
BMJ 2006 333: 1029-1030.
[Extract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
-
Human albumin administration in critically ill patients: systematic review of randomised controlled trials Why albumin may not work
- Cochrane Injuries Group Albumin Reviewers and Cochrane Injuries Group Albumin Reviewers
BMJ 1998 317: 235-240.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Pocock, S. J, Travison, T. G, Wruck, L. M
(2008). How to interpret figures in reports of clinical trials. BMJ
336: 1166-1169
[Full text]
-
(2007). Does Baseline Albumin Concentration Predict Response to Albumin Resuscitation?. JWatch Emergency Med.
2007: 3-3
[Full text]
Rapid Responses:
Read all Rapid Responses
- Albumin: a marker of inflammation
- Venkataswamy Narayana Mahesh
bmj.com, 16 Oct 2006
[Full text]
- Albumin Versus Albumin
- Ahmed N Ghanem
bmj.com, 22 Nov 2006
[Full text]
- Albumin has its place
- Gail SM Masterton, et al.
bmj.com, 13 Dec 2006
[Full text]