Resuscitation in shock associated with burns. Tradition or evidence-based medicine?

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the present standards and guidelines for fluid treatment of shock associated with burns, and to evaluate their scientific support in the literature.
DESIGN: Nonsystematic, critical review of the literature regarding the indications for crystalloid and colloid fluid treatment, invasive monitoring and the use of resuscitation end points in shock associated with burns. SUMMARY POINTS: Crystalloid fluid resuscitation of patients with burns is traditionally managed using empirical resuscitation formulae, with the efficacy monitored by vital signs and urinary output The value of these end points has been questioned by recent studies, which have suggested that such noninvasive parameters may be inadequate for detecting malperfusion. No consensus exists regarding appropriate assessment of adequate resuscitation, and the impact on survival of invasive measures has still to be proven in controlled randomized trials. Generally, a significantly higher fluid requirement has been demonstrated when resuscitation is based on invasive cardiorespiratory monitoring. Colloid resuscitation in burns patients is controversial. Published reports suggest that colloid infusion should be started between 6 and 36 h following thermal injury. A recent meta-analysis highlighted the shortcomings of albumin in patients with burns, and this, together with restrictions for the use of plasma products, has obscured the choice of colloid solution. The effect of colloid resuscitation on survival remains to be proven in burned patients.
CONCLUSION: The current standards for monitoring fluid therapy in patients with large burns are not supported by scientific data. Further randomized, controlled trials are indicated, and should help establish general guidelines regarding monitoring and treatment end points in these patients.