van Haren Frank, Zacharowski Kai
Australian National University Medical School, Intensive Care Unit, The Canberra Hospital, Garran, Canberra, Australia.
Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine & Pain Therapy, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2014 Sep;28(3):275-83. doi: 10.1016/j.bpa.2014.06.004. Epub 2014 Jul 17.
The administration of intravenous fluid to critically ill patients is one of the most common but also one of the most fiercely debated interventions in intensive care medicine. During the past decade, a number of important studies have been published which provide clinicians with improved knowledge regarding the timing, the type and the amount of fluid they should give to their critically ill patients. However, despite the fact that many thousands of patients have been enrolled in these trials of alternative fluid strategies, consensus remains elusive and practice is widely variable. Early adequate resuscitation of patients in shock followed by a restrictive strategy may be associated with better outcomes. Colloids such as modern hydroxyethyl starch are more effective than crystalloids in early resuscitation of patients in shock, and are safe when administered during surgery. However, these colloids may not be beneficial later in the course of intensive care treatment and should best be avoided in intensive care patients who have a high risk of developing acute kidney injury. Albumin has no clear benefit over saline and is associated with increased mortality in neurotrauma patients. Balanced fluids reduce the risk of hyperchloraemic acidosis and possibly kidney injury. The use of hypertonic fluids in patients with sepsis and acute lung injury warrants further investigation and should be considered experimental at this stage. Fluid therapy impacts relevant patient-related outcomes. Clinicians should adopt an individualized strategy based on the clinical scenario and best available evidence. One size does not fit all.
对重症患者进行静脉输液是重症监护医学中最常见但也是争议最大的干预措施之一。在过去十年中,发表了许多重要研究,为临床医生提供了关于输液时机、类型和剂量的更多知识,这些知识有助于他们为重症患者进行输液治疗。然而,尽管成千上万的患者参与了这些替代输液策略的试验,但仍未达成共识,临床实践差异很大。对休克患者进行早期充分复苏,随后采取限制性策略,可能会带来更好的治疗效果。在休克患者的早期复苏中,诸如现代羟乙基淀粉之类的胶体溶液比晶体溶液更有效,并且在手术期间使用是安全的。然而,在重症监护治疗后期,这些胶体溶液可能并无益处,对于有发生急性肾损伤高风险的重症监护患者,最好避免使用。白蛋白相对于生理盐水并无明显益处,而且会增加神经创伤患者的死亡率。平衡液可降低高氯性酸中毒的风险,并可能减少肾损伤。在脓毒症和急性肺损伤患者中使用高渗液值得进一步研究,在现阶段应视为试验性治疗。液体治疗会影响与患者相关的重要治疗结果。临床医生应根据临床情况和现有最佳证据采取个体化策略。不能一概而论。