Pro/con clinical debate: Hydroxyethylstarches should be avoided in septic patients
- PMID: 12930549
- PMCID: PMC270695
- DOI: 10.1186/cc1885
Pro/con clinical debate: Hydroxyethylstarches should be avoided in septic patients
Abstract
There are few issues in critical care medicine that have a less clearly defined standard of care than the intravenous fluid choice for resuscitation. Natural colloids (such as albumin) became popular during the Second World War when there was a need to develop a portable, easily stored, blood substitute. Early successes led to widespread use and a multibillion dollar industry. It is not surprising given the large demand, high costs and potential adverse effects of natural colloids that synthetic colloids have emerged. In the present article, two groups of clinical investigators remind us of the controversies surrounding the use of synthetic colloids.
References
-
- Ernest D, Belzberg AS, Dodek PM. Distribution of normal saline and 5% albumin infusions in septic patients. Crit Care Med. 1999;27:46–50. - PubMed
-
- Rackow EC, Falk JL, Fein IA, Siegel JS, Packman MI, Haupt MT, Kaufman BS, Putnam D. Fluid resuscitation in circulatory shock: a comparison of the cardiorespiratory effects of albumin, het-astarch, and saline solutions in patients with hypovolemic and septic shock. Crit Care Med. 1983;11:839–850. - PubMed
-
- Choi PT, Yip G, Quinonez LG, Cook DJ. Crystalloids vs. colloids in fluid resuscitation: a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 1999;27:200–210. - PubMed
-
- Marik PE, Iglesias J. Would the colloid detractors please sit down! [Editorial.] Crit Care Med. 2000;28:2652–2654. - PubMed
-
- Boldt J, Heesen M, Muller M, Pabsdorf M, Hempelmann G. The effects of albumin versus hydroxyethyl starch solution on car-diorespiratory and circulatory variables in critically ill patients. Anesth Analg. 1996;83:254–261. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
