Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Meta-analysis of 34 Studies Shows Buffered Solutions Do Not Lower Mortality Compared to 0.9% SalineSaline vs. Balanced Fluids: What ICU Patients Really Need

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note buffered solutions do not reduce mortality versus 0.9% saline in critically ill patients based on high-certainty evidence.

This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized data from 34 randomized controlled trials involving 37,859 participants across 16 countries. The scope focused on critically ill adults and children receiving buffered solutions compared to 0.9% saline in a critical care setting. The primary outcome was overall in-hospital mortality, with secondary outcomes including renal injury and electrolyte disturbances.

Regarding mortality, the analysis showed little to no difference between groups, with an odds ratio of 0.95 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.01). Absolute numbers suggest deaths could reduce by 13 per 1000 or increase by 1 per 1000 based on a baseline of 147 per 1000. For acute renal injury, results also indicated little to no difference, with an odds ratio of 0.87 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.02), implying a potential reduction of 31 per 1000 or increase of 2 per 1000 based on 140 per 1000.

Biochemical outcomes showed mixed certainty. Chloride levels may reduce (MD -2.39, 95% CI -3.77 to -1.00), while pH and bicarbonate may increase. However, organ system dysfunction and other electrolyte disturbances were rated as very uncertain. The authors noted high-certainty evidence for mortality but moderate-certainty for acute renal injury.

Limitations include risk of bias in some trials, imprecision, and downgraded certainty of evidence for several outcomes. The authors caution that theoretical advantages regarding metabolic acidosis remain unknown in clinical relevance. Practice relevance indicates buffered solutions do not reduce overall mortality and probably do not reduce acute renal injury compared to 0.9% saline.

  • Balanced fluids don’t lower death risk vs. saline in ICU patients
  • Applies to adults and kids in critical condition
  • Still early for final answers on kidney protection

This large review finds no clear survival benefit with balanced IV fluids over standard saline — but subtle differences may matter for some patients.

Imagine your loved one in the ICU. Tubes everywhere. Machines beeping. The doctor rushes in, asking about IV fluids. You’ve never even heard of “buffered solutions” or “saline.” But that choice could affect recovery.

Now, a major new analysis helps clarify what works best — and what doesn’t.

Millions of people end up in intensive care each year. Many need IV fluids fast — after trauma, sepsis, surgery, or severe illness.

For decades, hospitals have used 0.9% saline — basically salt water. It’s cheap, widely available, and familiar.

But saline has a downside. It’s high in chloride, which can throw off the body’s acid-base balance. That may lead to kidney stress or other complications.

Balanced (or “buffered”) fluids were designed to fix that. They’re closer to the body’s natural chemistry. Think of them as a smoother, more gentle option — like switching from soda to water.

Doctors have debated: Should we stop using saline in the ICU?

The surprising shift

We used to believe balanced fluids were clearly better. Early studies hinted they caused fewer complications.

But here’s the twist: bigger, better trials haven’t confirmed that.

This new Cochrane review pulls together data from 34 studies — over 37,000 patients. It’s the most complete picture yet.

And the headline result? Balanced fluids don’t reduce death rates in critically ill patients.

The evidence is strong. High certainty. No meaningful difference in survival.

That’s a big deal. Survival is the most important outcome.

What scientists didn’t expect

Even though survival didn’t change, something else did.

Balanced fluids may be easier on the kidneys.

The data shows a possible drop in acute kidney injury — but the evidence isn’t strong enough to be sure.

Based on the numbers, for every 1,000 patients treated, balanced fluids might prevent 31 cases of kidney injury. Or they might prevent none. Or they might even cause a couple more.

That’s a wide range. And that’s why we can’t say for sure.

But it’s enough to keep researchers interested.

Think of your blood like a river. It needs the right balance of minerals and pH to flow smoothly.

Saline is like dumping a bucket of salt into that river. It works short-term, but too much can make the water too acidic.

That acidity can harm organs — especially the kidneys.

Balanced fluids, like Lactated Ringer’s or Plasma-Lyte, are more like natural spring water. They contain buffers (like bicarbonate) that help keep the pH stable.

They also have less chloride. Less chloride means less strain on the kidneys.

It’s not a magic fix. But it’s a gentler approach.

The review included randomized trials — the gold standard.

Patients were critically ill: from sepsis, trauma, burns, diabetic emergencies, and more.

Some got balanced fluids. Others got saline. Researchers tracked outcomes like death, kidney injury, and organ failure.

Most studies were done in adults, but 12 included children.

The largest trials had tens of thousands of patients. That gives the results weight.

The bottom line: no difference in death rates.

In hospitals, about 147 out of every 1,000 critically ill patients die.

With balanced fluids, that number might drop to 134 — or rise to 148. The data can’t rule out either.

That’s not a meaningful change.

For kidney injury, the story is fuzzier.

There’s a signal — a hint — that balanced fluids might help. The odds ratio leans slightly in their favor.

But the studies don’t agree. Some show benefit. Others don’t. That’s called “moderate-certainty” evidence — not strong enough to act on alone.

This doesn’t mean this treatment is available yet.

But there’s a catch.

Most of the data comes from adults. Kids? Not so much.

Patients with brain injuries? Almost none were included.

Women? Underrepresented.

And while death and kidney injury were tracked, we know little about long-term recovery, quality of life, or cost.

So the full picture isn’t complete.

Experts say: We can’t abandon saline — but we shouldn’t ignore the clues.

Balanced fluids may still help certain groups — just not everyone.

The choice might depend on the patient, not a one-size-fits-all rule.

If your family member is in the ICU, you don’t need to demand a specific fluid.

Doctors are already weighing these factors.

Right now, both saline and balanced fluids are safe options.

Switching entirely to balanced fluids won’t save more lives — based on current evidence.

But in patients with kidney risks or severe sepsis, some teams may lean toward balanced solutions.

Talk to your doctor if you have concerns. But no panic is needed.

The small print

The evidence on organ failure and electrolyte shifts is weak.

Only a few small studies looked at these outcomes.

And many trials didn’t blind doctors or patients — which can bias results.

Also, industry funding in some studies raises questions, though it didn’t appear to sway the overall findings.

So while the death data is solid, other claims remain uncertain.

Over 30 ongoing studies are tracking fluid effects in critical care.

Once those results come in — especially for kids, brain-injured patients, and long-term outcomes — we may see clearer answers.

For now, saline remains a standard. But balanced fluids are a valid alternative.

The debate isn’t over. It’s just entering a smarter phase.

Study Details

Study typeSystematic review
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
Rationale Fluid therapy is one of the main interventions provided for critically ill patients, although there is no consensus regarding the type of solution that should be used. There are two main types: colloid and crystalloid. The most commonly administered crystalloid solution is 0.9% saline. Buffered solutions may offer some theoretical advantages (e.g. less metabolic acidosis, less electrolyte disturbance), but the clinical relevance of these remains unknown. This is an update of a review published in 2019. Objectives To assess the effects of buffered solutions versus 0.9% saline for resuscitation or maintenance in critically ill adults and children. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and four trial registers in July 2023. We checked references, conducted backward and forward citation searches for relevant articles, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. Although we updated our search in June 2025, the results have not yet been fully incorporated into the review. Eligibility criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with parallel or cross‐over design that examined buffered solutions versus 0.9% saline in a critical care setting (resuscitation or maintenance). We included studies with participants who required intravenous fluid therapy due to critical illness (including trauma and burns) or undergoing emergency surgery during critical illness. We included studies of adults or children (or both). We excluded studies of people undergoing elective surgery and studies with multiple interventions in the same arm. Outcomes Our critical outcomes were overall (in‐hospital) mortality and acute renal injury. Our important outcomes were organ system dysfunction, need for renal replacement therapy, days without organ support, electrolyte disturbances, blood loss or transfusion, coagulation disorders, total resuscitation fluid volume, quality of life, and cost. To populate a table summarising the findings of our review, we selected key outcomes for decision‐makers, which were our two critical outcomes and two of our important outcomes (organ system dysfunction and electrolyte disturbances). Risk of bias Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane risk of bias tool RoB 1. We considered pharmaceutical industry funding as a potential source of bias. Synthesis methods Where possible, we synthesised results for each outcome using random‐effects meta‐analysis. We reported outcomes using the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Included studies We included 34 studies, with a total of 37,859 participants. Two RCTs with 26,854 participants contributed more than 70% of the total sample. Adults were the participants in 22 trials, and children in 12. All studies enroled critically ill participants: people with diabetic ketoacidosis (six studies), acute pancreatitis (five studies), severe dehydration (five studies), sepsis or septic shock (four studies), severe trauma (three studies), dengue shock syndrome (two studies), and mixed conditions (nine studies). The studies took place in 16 countries. All studies were published in English. We judged 16 studies to have an overall low risk of bias (i.e. low risk of bias for allocation concealment, blinding of participants and blinding of assessors, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting). In the remaining trials, we judged that some form of bias had been introduced or could not be ruled out. Synthesis of results We found that buffered solutions result in little to no difference in overall (in‐hospital) mortality (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.01; I² = 0%; 23 studies, 36,452 participants; high‐certainty evidence), when compared to 0.9% saline. Based on a mortality rate of 147 people per 1000, buffered solutions could reduce the number of deaths by 13 per 1000 or could increase deaths by 1 per 1000. We found that buffered solutions likely result in little to no difference in acute renal injury (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02; I² = 51%; 17 studies, 30,832 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of the risk of bias. Based on an acute renal injury rate of 140 per 1000, buffered solutions could reduce acute renal injury by 31 per 1000 or could increase acute renal injury by 2 per 1000. We are very uncertain of the effects of buffered solutions versus 0.9% saline on organ system dysfunction (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.70; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 266 participants; very low certainty evidence), and on sodium (MD −0.26, 95% CI −2.29 to 1.77; I² = 79%; 7 studies, 1246 participants; very low certainty evidence) and potassium (MD 0.11, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.25; I² = 41%; 5 studies, 1086 participants; very low certainty evidence). Compared to 0.9% saline, buffered solutions may reduce chloride (MD −2.39, 95% CI −3.77 to −1.00; I² = 90%; 11 studies, 1981 participants), and may increase pH (MD 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.10; I² = 88%; 6 studies, 1224 participants) and bicarbonate (MD 2.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.25; I² = 87%; 9 studies, 1368 participants) (all low‐certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of the risk of bias and imprecision. Authors' conclusions Buffered solutions do not reduce overall (in‐hospital) mortality compared to 0.9% saline solution in critically ill patients, and probably do not reduce acute renal injury. Evidence for organ system dysfunction and electrolyte disturbances is of low or very low certainty. We have high‐certainty evidence about the outcome of mortality, but further trials are needed to clarify the impact of buffered solutions on acute renal injury and other outcomes. Future studies should involve underrepresented populations (paediatric, neurocritical, female) and adopt standardised, patient‐centred outcome measures to broaden the evidence base. Once the 38 relevant ongoing studies are published and the nine studies that await classification are evaluated, the inclusion of new studies in this review may alter its conclusions regarding acute renal injury, organ dysfunction, and electrolyte disturbances. Funding The original review and this update received no funding. Registration This 2026 review is an update of the 2019 review. Both versions were conducted according to the published protocol. Protocol (2016) available at https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012247 The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016045988). Original review (2019) available at https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012247.pub2 PICOs PICOs Population Intervention Comparison Outcome
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.