Skip to main content
. 2017 Oct 27;44(2):191–202. doi: 10.1007/s00068-017-0862-y

Table 4.

Pooled mortality rate between hypotensive and aggressive resuscitation groups in the comparative studies

Name, year Sample size of hypotensive patients No of deaths P value Hazard ratio Survival rate between restrictive versus large volume resuscitation (%)
Death/patients (hypotensive group) (%) Death/patients (aggressive group) (%)
Randomised control trials and prospective study
 Bickell et al. [13] 598 86/289 (29.7) 116/309 (37.5) 0.04 N/M 70 versus 62
 Dutton et al. [26] 110 4/55 (7.2) 4/55 (7.2) N/M HR 1.00 92.7 versus 92.7
 Morrison et al. [27] 90 10/44 (22.7) 13/46 (28.2) 0.58 HR 1.10 77.2 versus 71.7
 Schreiber et al. [28] 191 5/96 (5.2) 14/95 (14.7) N/M aOR 0.39 94.8 versus 85.2
 Carrick et al. [29] 168 18/86 (20.9) 21/82 (25.6) 0.47 HR 0.48 78.5 versus 73.7
 Total 1157 123/570 (21.57%) 168/587 (28.6%)
Prospective cohort study
 Brown et al. [31] 603 19/123 (15.4%) 18/480 (3.75) 0.90 HR 0.81 84.55 versus 96.25
Groups Population (n) Mortality n (%) Survival rate (mean)
Calculation of overall mortality rate and survival rate
 Hypotensive resuscitation 693 142 (20.49) 82.95%
 Aggressive resuscitation 1067 186 (17.43) 80.25%

aOR adjusted odds ratio, n number, vs. versus