| Title |
Choices in fluid type and volume during resuscitation: impact on patient outcomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13613-014-0038-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alena Lira, Michael R Pinsky |
| Abstract |
We summarize the emerging new literature regarding the pathophysiological principles underlying the beneficial and deleterious effects of fluid administration during resuscitation, as well as current recommendations and recent clinical evidence regarding specific colloids and crystalloids. This systematic review allows us to conclude that there is no clear benefit associated with the use of colloids compared to crystalloids and no evidence to support the unique benefit of albumin as a resuscitation fluid. Hydroxyethyl starch use has been associated with increased acute kidney injury (AKI) and use of renal replacement therapy. Other synthetic colloids (dextran and gelatins) though not well studied do not appear superior to crystalloids. Normal saline (NS) use is associated with hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis and increased risk of AKI. This risk is decreased when balanced salt solutions are used. Balanced crystalloid solutions have shown no harmful effects, and there is evidence for benefit over NS. Finally, fluid resuscitation should be applied in a goal-directed manner and targeted to physiologic needs of individual patients. The evidence supports use of fluids in volume-responsive patients whose end-organ perfusion parameters have not been met. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 20% |
| Costa Rica | 1 | 10% |
| Colombia | 1 | 10% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 10% |
| Spain | 1 | 10% |
| Mexico | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 30% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 264 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Turkey | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 256 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 35 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 34 | 13% |
| Other | 33 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 32 | 12% |
| Researcher | 28 | 11% |
| Other | 66 | 25% |
| Unknown | 36 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 186 | 70% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Engineering | 5 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 3% |
| Unknown | 45 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 May 2015.
All research outputs
#4,173,552
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#510
of 1,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,521
of 370,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,211 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 370,000 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.