Volume 17 Supplement 2

33rd International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine

Open Access

Network meta-analysis of clinical trials of fluid treatments in sepsis demonstrates improved survival with albumin compared with crystalloid and hydroxyethyl starch

  • M Bansal1,
  • A Farrugia2 and
  • G Martin3
Critical Care201317(Suppl 2):P375


Published: 19 March 2013


Fluid resuscitation is widely practiced in treating sepsis. Comparative assessment of the different fluid modalities is hampered by a paucity of direct trials. We present a network meta-analysis for assessing the relative effectiveness of two fluid treatments in sepsis when they have not been compared directly in a randomized trial but have each been compared with a common treatment.


A systematic review of trials sepsis yielded 13 trials for assessment in network meta-analysis. The indirect comparison between albumin, HES and crystalloid was conducted using Bayesian methods for binomial likelihood, fixed-effects network meta-analysis with a Monte Carlo Gibbs sampling method. Studies in septic patients with crystalloid as a reference treatment compared with any formulation of the colloid treatments albumin or HES were included, as were direct head-to-head trials between the two colloids.


Odds ratios between the different treatments were obtained (Figure 1). Ranking the interventions [1] demonstrated that albumin ranked highest in lowering mortality at a 96.4% probability compared with 3.6% and 0.01% for crystalloid and HES, respectively.


Albumin as a fluid therapy in sepsis is associated with the lowest mortality of the three modalities studied.
Figure 1

Forest plot of results of Bayesian fixed-effect network meta-analysis of mortality.

Authors’ Affiliations

Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association
University of Western Australia
Emory University School of Medicine


  1. Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP: Graphical Methods and numerical summaries for presenting Results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64: 163-171. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.016View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar


© Bansal et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.