Ellekjaer Karen Louise, Sivapalan Praleene, Myatra Sheila N, Grønningsæter Lasse, Hästbacka Johanna, Young Paul J, Boyle Andrew J, Ostermann Marlies, Pfortmueller Carmen A, Jovaišienė Ieva, De Waele Jan, Reintam Blaser Annika, Al-Fares Abdulrahman, Khanna Ashish K, Arabi Yaseen M, Fujii Tomoko, Keus Eric, Mer Mervyn, Alshamsi Fayez, Cronhjort Maria, Perner Anders, Møller Morten H
Department of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Collaboration for Research in Intensive Care (CRIC), Copenhagen, Denmark.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2025 Jan;69(1):e14553. doi: 10.1111/aas.14553.
Clinical practice guidelines recommend use of buffered crystalloid solutions in critically ill patients but do not distinguish between solutions based on different buffering anions, that is, acetate- versus lactate-buffered solutions. We therefore surveyed relevant physicians about their preferences and attitudes toward each solution.
We conducted an international online survey of anesthesiologists (within perioperative care) and intensive care unit (ICU) physicians. The survey comprised 13 questions on respondents' attitudes and preferences regarding the use of acetate- and/or lactate-buffered crystalloid solutions, including their opinions on a potential clinical trial comparing these solutions and the clinical importance of such a trial.
A total of 1321 respondents participated, with a response rate of 34%, ranging from 14% to 96% across 18 countries. Most surveyed physicians reported using buffered crystalloid solutions "very often" (76%) or "often" (16%). Availability of acetate- and lactate-buffered solutions varied, as 35% of respondents reported having both types available, 35% reported having only acetate-, and 24% reported having only lactate-buffered solutions available. Most respondents (87%) would support a randomized trial in adult emergency surgical patients and ICU patients comparing an acetate- versus lactate-buffered crystalloid solution. The median rating of the clinical importance of this question was 5 (interquartile range 4-6) on a scale from 1 to 9.
In this international survey, the reported use of buffered crystalloid solutions was high. Availability of the different solutions varied widely. The support for a potential randomized trial was high, with the clinical importance rated important but not critical by most respondents.
临床实践指南建议在危重症患者中使用缓冲晶体溶液,但未根据不同的缓冲阴离子(即醋酸盐缓冲溶液与乳酸盐缓冲溶液)对溶液进行区分。因此,我们就相关医生对每种溶液的偏好和态度进行了调查。
我们对麻醉医生(围手术期护理领域)和重症监护病房(ICU)医生进行了一项国际在线调查。该调查包含13个问题,涉及受访者对使用醋酸盐缓冲和/或乳酸盐缓冲晶体溶液的态度和偏好,包括他们对比较这两种溶液的潜在临床试验的看法以及该试验的临床重要性。
共有1321名受访者参与,回复率为34%,在18个国家中回复率从14%到96%不等。大多数接受调查的医生报告“非常频繁”(76%)或“频繁”(16%)使用缓冲晶体溶液。醋酸盐缓冲溶液和乳酸盐缓冲溶液的可得性各不相同,35%的受访者报告两种溶液都有,35%的受访者报告只有醋酸盐缓冲溶液,24%的受访者报告只有乳酸盐缓冲溶液。大多数受访者(87%)支持在成年急诊手术患者和ICU患者中进行一项比较醋酸盐缓冲晶体溶液与乳酸盐缓冲晶体溶液的随机试验。在1至9分的量表上,这个问题的临床重要性的中位数评分为5(四分位间距为4 - 6)。
在这项国际调查中,报告的缓冲晶体溶液使用率很高。不同溶液的可得性差异很大。对潜在随机试验的支持率很高,大多数受访者认为其临床重要性为重要但非关键。