Macdonald Stephen, Peake Sandra L, Corfield Alasdair R, Delaney Anthony
Medical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia.
Front Med (Lausanne). 2022 Nov 24;9:1069782. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.1069782. eCollection 2022.
Intravenous fluid resuscitation is recommended first-line treatment for sepsis-associated hypotension and/or hypoperfusion. The rationale is to restore circulating volume and optimize cardiac output in the setting of shock. Nonetheless, there is limited high-level evidence to support this practice. Over the past decade emerging evidence of harm associated with large volume fluid resuscitation among patients with septic shock has led to calls for a more conservative approach. Specifically, clinical trials undertaken in Africa have found harm associated with initial fluid resuscitation in the setting of infection and hypoperfusion. While translating these findings to practice in other settings is problematic, there has been a re-appraisal of current practice with some recommending earlier use of vasopressors rather than repeated fluid boluses as an alternative to restore perfusion in septic shock. There is consequently uncertainty and variation in practice. The question of fluids or vasopressors for initial resuscitation in septic shock is the subject of international multicentre clinical trials.
静脉液体复苏被推荐为脓毒症相关性低血压和/或灌注不足的一线治疗方法。其基本原理是在休克状态下恢复循环血容量并优化心输出量。尽管如此,支持这种做法的高级别证据有限。在过去十年中,有新出现的证据表明,感染性休克患者进行大量液体复苏会带来危害,这引发了对更保守方法的呼吁。具体而言,在非洲进行的临床试验发现,在感染和灌注不足的情况下,初始液体复苏会带来危害。虽然将这些研究结果应用于其他环境存在问题,但目前的做法已被重新评估,一些人建议更早使用血管加压药,而不是反复推注液体,作为感染性休克中恢复灌注的替代方法。因此,实践中存在不确定性和差异。感染性休克初始复苏使用液体还是血管加压药的问题是国际多中心临床试验的主题。