Cargando…

Fluid resuscitation in human sepsis: Time to rewrite history?

Fluid resuscitation continues to be recommended as the first-line resuscitative therapy for all patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. The current acceptance of the therapy is based in part on long history and familiarity with its use in the resuscitation of other forms of shock, as well as o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Byrne, Liam, Van Haren, Frank
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Paris 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5209309/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28050897
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-016-0231-8
_version_ 1782490714593034240
author Byrne, Liam
Van Haren, Frank
author_facet Byrne, Liam
Van Haren, Frank
author_sort Byrne, Liam
collection PubMed
description Fluid resuscitation continues to be recommended as the first-line resuscitative therapy for all patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. The current acceptance of the therapy is based in part on long history and familiarity with its use in the resuscitation of other forms of shock, as well as on an incomplete and incorrect understanding of the pathophysiology of sepsis. Recently, the safety of intravenous fluids in patients with sepsis has been called into question with both prospective and observational data suggesting improved outcomes with less fluid or no fluid. The current evidence for the continued use of fluid resuscitation for sepsis remains contentious with no prospective evidence demonstrating benefit to fluid resuscitation as a therapy in isolation. This article reviews the historical and physiological rationale for the introduction of fluid resuscitation as treatment for sepsis and highlights a number of significant concerns based on current experimental and clinical evidence. The research agenda should focus on the development of hyperdynamic animal sepsis models which more closely mimic human sepsis and on experimental and clinical studies designed to evaluate minimal or no fluid strategies in the resuscitation phase of sepsis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5209309
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer Paris
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52093092017-01-18 Fluid resuscitation in human sepsis: Time to rewrite history? Byrne, Liam Van Haren, Frank Ann Intensive Care Review Fluid resuscitation continues to be recommended as the first-line resuscitative therapy for all patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. The current acceptance of the therapy is based in part on long history and familiarity with its use in the resuscitation of other forms of shock, as well as on an incomplete and incorrect understanding of the pathophysiology of sepsis. Recently, the safety of intravenous fluids in patients with sepsis has been called into question with both prospective and observational data suggesting improved outcomes with less fluid or no fluid. The current evidence for the continued use of fluid resuscitation for sepsis remains contentious with no prospective evidence demonstrating benefit to fluid resuscitation as a therapy in isolation. This article reviews the historical and physiological rationale for the introduction of fluid resuscitation as treatment for sepsis and highlights a number of significant concerns based on current experimental and clinical evidence. The research agenda should focus on the development of hyperdynamic animal sepsis models which more closely mimic human sepsis and on experimental and clinical studies designed to evaluate minimal or no fluid strategies in the resuscitation phase of sepsis. Springer Paris 2017-01-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5209309/ /pubmed/28050897 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-016-0231-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Review
Byrne, Liam
Van Haren, Frank
Fluid resuscitation in human sepsis: Time to rewrite history?
title Fluid resuscitation in human sepsis: Time to rewrite history?
title_full Fluid resuscitation in human sepsis: Time to rewrite history?
title_fullStr Fluid resuscitation in human sepsis: Time to rewrite history?
title_full_unstemmed Fluid resuscitation in human sepsis: Time to rewrite history?
title_short Fluid resuscitation in human sepsis: Time to rewrite history?
title_sort fluid resuscitation in human sepsis: time to rewrite history?
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5209309/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28050897
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-016-0231-8
work_keys_str_mv AT byrneliam fluidresuscitationinhumansepsistimetorewritehistory
AT vanharenfrank fluidresuscitationinhumansepsistimetorewritehistory