4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Preferred plasma volume expanders for critically ill patients: results of an international survey

Journal

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
Volume 30, Issue 12, Pages 2222-2229

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-004-2415-1

Keywords

survey; intensive care unit; colloids; crystalloids; fluid resuscitation; practices

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Criteria for plasma volume expander selection in critically ill patients remain controversial. This study evaluated preferences of intensivists regarding plasma volume expanders. Design: International survey using a 75-item questionnaire. Participants and setting: All members of the European and French Societies of Intensive Care Medicine (n=2,415 in 1,610 adult ICUs in Europe and elsewhere) were invited to participate, and 577 (24%) working in 515 ICUs (32%) returned completed questionnaires. Results: Among respondents, 17% used crystalloids alone as their first-choice strategy, 18% colloids alone, and 65% both. Colloids alone were often chosen in patients with cirrhosis (42%), coagulation disorders (42%), or adult respiratory distress syndrome (39%); and crystalloids in patients with dehydration (85%), drug overdose (59%), or acute renal failure (49%). First-line plasma expanders were as follows: isotonic crystalloids (81%), starches (55%), gelatins (35%), albumin (7%), plasma (6%), dextrans (4%), and hypertonic crystalloids (2%). Colloids alone were used more frequently in the United Kingdom (40%), starches in Germany (81%) and The Netherlands (66%), and gelatins in the United Kingdom (68%). The main factors behind preferences for first-line plasma volume expanders were time to volume loss correction, duration of effect, adverse events, and cost. Conclusions: Colloids are widely used as first-line treatment, usually in combination with crystalloids. Starches are the most widely used colloids in Europe, where albumin use is declining. However, strategies vary widely across clinical situations and countries.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available