Kruse Marianne, Lenz Ida Katinka, Josuttis David, Plettig Philip, Hahnenkamp Klaus, Gümbel Denis, Güthoff Claas, Hartmann Bernd, Aman Martin, Schmittner Marc Dominik, Gebhardt Volker
Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, BG-Klinikum Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin, 12683 Berlin, Germany.
Department of Anesthesiology, University Medicine Greifswald, 17475 Greifswald, Germany.
Eur Burn J. 2025 Jun 10;6(2):35. doi: 10.3390/ebj6020035.
Finding the optimal amount of fluid is a major challenge in burn shock. Although there is evidence that a restrictive fluid regime is beneficial, current practice shows fluid resuscitation still well above recommendations. The extent of trauma, pre-hospital care and the patient's pre-existing conditions influence requirements.
We analysed outcomes and influencing factors of fluid regimes in a retrospective cohort study including 90 severely burnt patients resuscitated with the same protocol.
The mean amount of fluids in the first 24 h was 6.5 mL/kg bodyweight (BW)/% total burn surface area (TBSA). A total of 14% received restrictive (<4), 34% received liberal (4-6) and 51% received excessive (>6) mL/kgBW/%TBSA fluids. There was no difference regarding mortality, age, complications, organ failure, inhalation injury or full-thickness burns in the groups. Patients with excessive fluid therapy had a significantly lower ABSI score (9 vs. 11, = 0.05) and TBSA (35 vs. 51%, < 0.001), while patients with a restrictive fluid therapy needed fewer incidences of surgery to cover burn wounds (3.5 vs. 9.0 vs. 7.0, = 0.008). History of liver disease or alcohol abuse tended to indicate excessive fluid administration. Patients with pre-existing heart failure received restrictive fluid therapy (23 vs. 3 vs. 4%, = 0.03).
Individualised, timely therapy monitoring is as essential as identifying patients with a higher or lower fluid requirement. Excessive fluid resuscitation had fewer deleterious consequences in complications than expected but seems to influence wound healing. Awareness of circumstances that prompt deviations from recommended fluid rates remains elementary.
确定烧伤休克时的最佳补液量是一项重大挑战。尽管有证据表明限制性补液方案有益,但目前的实践显示液体复苏量仍远高于推荐值。创伤程度、院前护理及患者的既往病史会影响补液需求。
我们在一项回顾性队列研究中分析了补液方案的结果及影响因素,该研究纳入了90例按相同方案进行复苏的重度烧伤患者。
前24小时的平均补液量为6.5毫升/千克体重/烧伤总面积百分比。共有14%的患者接受了限制性补液(<4),34%接受了适度补液(4 - 6),51%接受了过量补液(>6)毫升/千克体重/烧伤总面积百分比。各组在死亡率、年龄、并发症、器官衰竭、吸入性损伤或全层烧伤方面无差异。接受过量补液治疗的患者的急性烧伤严重程度指数(ABSI)评分显著较低(9对11,P = 0.05),烧伤总面积也较低(35%对51%,P < 0.001),而接受限制性补液治疗的患者覆盖烧伤创面所需的手术次数较少(3.5对9.0对7.0,P = 0.008)。有肝病或酗酒史往往提示补液过量。既往有心力衰竭的患者接受了限制性补液治疗(23%对3%对4%,P = 0.03)。
个体化、及时的治疗监测与识别补液需求较高或较低的患者同样重要。过量液体复苏在并发症方面产生的有害后果比预期的少,但似乎会影响伤口愈合。了解导致偏离推荐补液速率的情况仍然至关重要。