Lactated Ringer's Versus Normal Saline for Acute Pancreatitis

Background: Acute pancreatitis is a common problem in the United States necessitating 275,000 hospital admissions per year, with resultant healthcare costs of approximately 2.5 billion USD annually. As numerous trials have failed to show a benefit to specific pharmacologic therapies in acute pancreatitis, the mainstay of treatment has been both supportive care and early, aggressive fluid resuscitation. Small randomized studies have shown conflicting results with regards to the influence of resuscitation fluid on outcomes in acute pancreatitis, necessitating a large randomized trial to clarify if fluid choice matters or not in the treatment of acute pancreatitis. Objective: To assess the comparative efficacy of normal saline versus lactated ringer's solution in the management of acute pancreatitis. Study Design: Patients presenting to the Los Angeles County Hospital with acute pancreatitis are the focus population of this study. Patients will be randomized to fluid resuscitation with NS or LR within 8 hours of diagnosis of pancreatitis. The inclusion and exclusion criterion will be assessed (see below). Randomization will be performed using a random sequence algorithm with concealed allocation. The patients will be blinded to allocation by covering the bag with an opaque covering. A study physician determining the outcomes will also be blinded. Following randomization, the volumes of fluid administered for the resuscitation will be determined by a pre‐determined algorithm that will be the same for both treatment arms. The hydration algorithm is as follows: all patients will receive a bolus of the treatment fluid at a rate of 5 mL/kg/hour to be administered over the first two hours (total 10 mL/kg) with an assessment for volume overload at 1 hour. They will then will receive maintenance fluids at a rate of 3 mL/kg/hour. After 12 hours participants will have blood urea nitrogen (BUN) assessed, which is part of the standard clinical procedure. Those who do not have a fall in this parameter or who develop SIRS by this 12 hour checkpoint will receive a second 5 mL/kg/hour bolus over two hours (as above) of their designated treatment fluid followed by further treatment fluid at a rate of 3 mL/kg/hour. Those who do have a fall in BUN will receive further treatment fluid at a rate of 3 mL/kg/hour for 12 additional hours. Patients' volume status will be assessed in the following manner: study physicians will perform a targeted physical exam which will include assessment of JVD, lung auscultation, and monitoring for edema Q12 hours for the first 24 hours, then daily for the remainder of the hospital admission. In elderly patients and those with co‐morbidities, the targeted physical exam will be performed Q12 hours for the entire hospital admission. Vitals will also be obtained Q6‐8 hours. If they develop signs of fluid overload including pitting edema, ascites, anasacra, pulmonary edema, or dyspnea, or signs of renal failure including oliguria, anuria, or hypotension, they will have their fluid rate managed at the discretion of their treating physicians. However, it will be requested that if further fluid is given that it be the assigned type (LR versus NS). At 24 hours patients will be assessed for SIRS development (see outcomes). Beyond this point fluid rate will be per the primary team though it still be encouraged that the assigned type of fluid (LR versus NS) is used for additional resuscitation with the rate and volume beyond this point at the discretion of the treating physician. However, if the treating physicians have a strong preference to change to a different fluid type for clinical reasons this will be recorded (for post hoc analysis) and the patient included in the intention to treat analysis.