Andreas Markl-Le-Lev E, Ingrid Haller, Mirjam Bachler
{"title":"Fluid management in hemorrhagic shock.","authors":"Andreas Markl-Le-Lev E, Ingrid Haller, Mirjam Bachler","doi":"10.1097/ACO.0000000000001481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Fluid management in hemorrhagic shock is a controversial topic, and there are evolving clinical guidelines and evidence-based practice. This review aims to highlight the physiological aspects in the light of current evidence on which volume replacement solution to use.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Current evidence and international guidelines are shifting from a liberal to a restrictive fluid resuscitation strategy, emphasizing the potential risks associated with aggressive fluid therapy. The 'lethal triad of trauma' (hypoperfusion, acidosis, and coagulopathy) plays a crucial role in the pathophysiology of hemorrhagic shock. While crystalloids are less effective at restoring intravascular volume, colloids (especially hydroxyethyl starch) have raised concerns about potential adverse effects on renal function and coagulation. Albumin remains controversial, as studies showing no clear benefit and an increased mortality in traumatic brain injury patients. Fresh frozen plasma, may be useful in massive transfusion situations but is not recommended for volume resuscitation.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>The management of fluid resuscitation evolves, with a trend toward more restrictive strategies. Crystalloids, although less effective for severe volume depletion, remain a cornerstone of initial resuscitation. Among the colloids, gelatin-based solutions and albumin can be used when crystalloids are inadequate, while hydroxyethyl starch is no longer recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":50609,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Anesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000001481","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose of review: Fluid management in hemorrhagic shock is a controversial topic, and there are evolving clinical guidelines and evidence-based practice. This review aims to highlight the physiological aspects in the light of current evidence on which volume replacement solution to use.
Recent findings: Current evidence and international guidelines are shifting from a liberal to a restrictive fluid resuscitation strategy, emphasizing the potential risks associated with aggressive fluid therapy. The 'lethal triad of trauma' (hypoperfusion, acidosis, and coagulopathy) plays a crucial role in the pathophysiology of hemorrhagic shock. While crystalloids are less effective at restoring intravascular volume, colloids (especially hydroxyethyl starch) have raised concerns about potential adverse effects on renal function and coagulation. Albumin remains controversial, as studies showing no clear benefit and an increased mortality in traumatic brain injury patients. Fresh frozen plasma, may be useful in massive transfusion situations but is not recommended for volume resuscitation.
Summary: The management of fluid resuscitation evolves, with a trend toward more restrictive strategies. Crystalloids, although less effective for severe volume depletion, remain a cornerstone of initial resuscitation. Among the colloids, gelatin-based solutions and albumin can be used when crystalloids are inadequate, while hydroxyethyl starch is no longer recommended.
期刊介绍:
Published bimonthly and offering a unique and wide ranging perspective on the key developments in the field, each issue of Current Opinion in Anesthesiology features hand-picked review articles from our team of expert editors. With fifteen disciplines published across the year – including cardiovascular anesthesiology, neuroanesthesia and pain medicine – every issue also contains annotated references detailing the merits of the most important papers.