Groeneveld A B
Academisch Ziekenhuis Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Crit Care. 2000;4 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S16-20. doi: 10.1186/cc965. Epub 2000 Oct 13.
Key questions remain unresolved regarding the advantages and limitations of colloids for fluid resuscitation despite extensive investigation. Elucidation of these questions has been slowed, in part, by uncertainty as to the optimal endpoints that should be monitored in assessing patient response to administered fluid. Colloids and crystalloids do not appear to differ notably in their effects on preload recruitable stroke volume or oxygen delivery. Limited evidence nevertheless suggests that colloids might promote greater oxygen consumption than crystalloids. It remains unclear, in any case, to what extent such physiological parameters might be related to clinically relevant outcomes such as morbidity and mortality. Recent randomized controlled trial results indicate that, at least in certain forms of fluid imbalance, albumin is effective in significantly reducing morbidity and mortality. Much further investigation is needed, however, to determine the effects of colloid administration on clinically relevant outcomes in a broad range of critically ill patients. The ability of administered colloids to increase colloid osmotic pressure (COP) constitutes one mechanism by which colloids might reduce interstitial oedema and promote favourable patient outcomes. However, the applicability of this mechanism may be limited, due to the operation of compensatory mechanisms such as increased lymphatic drainage. Attempts to increase COP might also be less useful in states of increased vascular permeability such as acute respiratory distress syndrome, although this issue has by no means been settled by empirical data. Colloids are clearly more efficient than crystalloids in attaining resuscitation endpoints as judged by the need for administration of far smaller fluid volumes. Among the colloids, albumin offers several advantages compared with artificial colloids, including less restrictive dose limitations, lower risk of impaired haemostasis, absence of tissue deposition leading to severe prolonged pruritus, reduced incidence of anaphylactoid reactions, and ease of monitoring to prevent fluid overload. The cost of albumin, nevertheless, limits its usage. Crystalloids currently serve as the first-line fluids in hypovolaemic patients. Colloids can be considered in patients with severe or acute shock or hypovolaemia resulting from sudden plasma loss. Colloids may be combined with crystalloids to obviate administration of large crystalloid volumes. Further clinical trials are needed to define the optimal role for colloids in critically ill patients.
尽管进行了广泛研究,但关于胶体用于液体复苏的优势和局限性的关键问题仍未得到解决。这些问题的阐明在一定程度上因评估患者对输注液体反应时应监测的最佳终点存在不确定性而放缓。胶体和晶体在对可招募的前负荷每搏量或氧输送的影响方面似乎没有显著差异。然而,有限的证据表明,胶体可能比晶体促进更高的氧消耗。无论如何,目前尚不清楚这些生理参数在多大程度上可能与发病率和死亡率等临床相关结局相关。最近的随机对照试验结果表明,至少在某些形式的液体失衡中,白蛋白可有效显著降低发病率和死亡率。然而,需要进一步深入研究以确定输注胶体对广泛危重症患者临床相关结局的影响。输注胶体增加胶体渗透压(COP)的能力是胶体可能减少间质水肿并促进患者获得良好结局的一种机制。然而,由于诸如淋巴引流增加等代偿机制的作用,这种机制的适用性可能有限。在血管通透性增加的状态如急性呼吸窘迫综合征中,增加COP的尝试可能也不太有用,尽管这一问题尚未由经验数据完全解决。从达到复苏终点所需输注的液体量少得多这一点判断,胶体显然比晶体更有效。在胶体中,与人工胶体相比,白蛋白具有几个优点,包括剂量限制较少、止血功能受损风险较低、不存在导致严重长期瘙痒的组织沉积、类过敏反应发生率较低以及易于监测以防止液体过载。然而,白蛋白的成本限制了其使用。晶体目前是低血容量患者的一线液体。对于因突然血浆丢失导致的严重或急性休克或低血容量患者,可以考虑使用胶体。胶体可与晶体联合使用,以避免输注大量晶体液。需要进一步的临床试验来确定胶体在危重症患者中的最佳作用。