Literature DB >> 11867870

Fluid resuscitation: colloids vs. crystalloids.

Rinaldo Bellomo1.   

Abstract

The administration of intravenous fluids is perhaps the most common treatment given in the intensive care unit. According to biologic rationale, ongoing fluid losses should be replaced to maintain fluid homeostasis and relative or absolute deficiencies in circulating blood volume should be prevented or rapidly corrected. There is agreement that insensible fluid losses and isotonic fluid losses should be replaced with a judicious mixture of water and crystalloid solutions. There is, however, a great deal of controversy on which fluids should be used during the acute resuscitation phase to deal with acute relative or absolute hypovolemia. In particular, there is much controversy on whether colloidal or crystalloid solutions should be used. The controversy remains despite multiple meta-analyses. There are suggestions that albumin might increase mortality but the data supporting these concerns are weak. Starch solutions might adversely affect renal function. Crystalloids might be favored in trauma patients. These views remain inadequately supported by evidence. A randomized controlled trial now under way should increase the evidence base for practice in this area. Copyright 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11867870     DOI: 10.1159/000047015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Blood Purif        ISSN: 0253-5068            Impact factor:   2.614


  4 in total

Review 1.  [Determinants of insensible fluid loss. Perspiration, protein shift and endothelial glycocalyx].

Authors:  M Jacob; D Chappell; K Hofmann-Kiefer; P Conzen; K Peter; M Rehm
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 1.041

Review 2.  Pathophysiology of burns.

Authors:  Maike Keck; David H Herndon; Lars P Kamolz; Manfred Frey; Marc G Jeschke
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2009

3.  Renal outcomes and mortality following hydroxyethyl starch resuscitation of critically ill patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials: ATTENTION: The analysis and conclusions of this article are being revised by the authors. This is due to the journal Anesthesia and Analgesia's retraction of a paper by Dr. Joachim Boldt, an author in seven of the studies analyzed in this review. As such, the editors of Open Medicine recommend interpreting this review with extreme caution until Zarychanski et al. publish a new analysis and interpretation in Open Medicine. For more information, see Anesthesia and Analgesia's press release.

Authors:  Ryan Zarychanski; Alexis F Turgeon; Dean A Fergusson; Deborah J Cook; Paul Hébert; Sean M Bagshaw; Danny Monsour; Lauralyn McIntyre
Journal:  Open Med       Date:  2009-10-27

4.  Improved survival of critically ill cancer patients with septic shock.

Authors:  Jérôme Larché; Elie Azoulay; Fabienne Fieux; Laurent Mesnard; Delphine Moreau; Guillaume Thiery; Michaël Darmon; Jean-Roger Le Gall; Benoît Schlemmer
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2003-09-12       Impact factor: 17.440

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.