Siegemund Martin, Hollinger Alexa, Gebhard Eva C, Scheuzger Jonas D, Bolliger Daniel
Departement für Anästhesie, Operative Intensivbehandlung, präklinische Notfallmedizin und Schmerztherapie, Universitätsspital Basel, Departement klinische Forschung, Universität Basel, Switzerland.
Swiss Med Wkly. 2019 Feb 4;149:w20007. doi: 10.4414/smw.2019.20007. eCollection 2019 Jan 28.
After decades of ordinary scientific interest, fluid resuscitation of patients with septic and haemorrhagic shock took centre stage in intensive care research at the turn of the millennium. By that time, resuscitation fluids were the mainstay of haemodynamic stabilisation, avoidance of vasopressors and treatment of hypovolaemia in patients in shock, but were accompanied by adverse events such as excessive tissue oedema. With the spread of early goal-directed therapy research intensified and it was realised that type, volume and timing of resuscitation fluids might affect the course and outcome of critically ill patients. At the same time, the importance of microvascular blood flow as target of resuscitation was accepted. Today, once-forbidden albumin is the recommended colloid in severe sepsis and septic shock, and the European Medical Agency is considering the removal of starch solutions from the European market because of an increased incidence of acute kidney injury and mortality. This is unprecedented, especially because the administration of low-molecular-weight starches seems to have advantages in indications other than sepsis, and because practices in fluid resuscitation have changed fundamentally since the negative starch studies. Crystalloids are still the mainstay of hypovolaemia treatment in critically ill patients, but awareness is increasing that electrolyte composition, strong ion gap, tonicity and the bicarbonate-substituting anion may have an effect on adverse effects and outcome. In haemorrhagic shock, the utilisation of crystalloids and colloids is retreating, and plasma and erythrocyte concentrates are gaining more importance in the resuscitation of the patient with acute bleeding. However, there are still influential voices warning against the liberal usage of plasma concentrates and erythrocytes in trauma and haemorrhagic shock. This review describes the evidence relating to fluid resuscitation in sepsis, septic shock and massive haemorrhage. Beside the scientific evidence based on clinical trials, possible effects on the microcirculation and, therefore, organ function will be illustrated and areas of future research highlighted. The critical appraisal of the existing evidence should enable the reader to choose the optimal volume substitution for an individual patient.
在经历了数十年的普通科学研究兴趣之后,脓毒症和失血性休克患者的液体复苏在千年之交成为重症监护研究的核心。到那时,复苏液体是休克患者血流动力学稳定、避免使用血管升压药和治疗低血容量的主要手段,但会伴随诸如组织过度水肿等不良事件。随着早期目标导向治疗的推广,研究不断深入,人们意识到复苏液体的类型、容量和输注时机可能会影响危重症患者的病程和预后。与此同时,微血管血流作为复苏目标的重要性也得到了认可。如今,曾被禁用的白蛋白是严重脓毒症和脓毒性休克推荐使用的胶体,欧洲药品管理局正考虑将淀粉溶液从欧洲市场撤出,因为急性肾损伤和死亡率有所增加。这是前所未有的,特别是因为低分子质量淀粉在脓毒症以外的适应症中似乎具有优势,而且自淀粉相关负面研究以来,液体复苏的做法已经发生了根本性变化。晶体液仍然是危重症患者低血容量治疗的主要手段,但人们越来越意识到电解质组成、强离子间隙、张力和碳酸氢盐替代阴离子可能会对不良反应和预后产生影响。在失血性休克中,晶体液和胶体液的使用正在减少,血浆和红细胞浓缩物在急性出血患者的复苏中变得更加重要。然而,仍有有影响力的声音警告不要在创伤和失血性休克中过度使用血浆浓缩物和红细胞。本综述描述了脓毒症、脓毒性休克和大量出血时液体复苏的相关证据。除了基于临床试验的科学证据外,还将说明对微循环以及因此对器官功能可能产生的影响,并突出未来研究的领域。对现有证据的批判性评估应能使读者为个体患者选择最佳的容量替代方案。