4.4 Article

European consensus statement for intraoperative fluid therapy in children

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY
Volume 28, Issue 9, Pages 637-639

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e3283446bb8

Keywords

acid-base; children; glucose; intraoperative fluids; osmolarity; sodium

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The intraoperative infusion of isotonic solutions with 1-2.5% glucose in children is considered well established use in Europe and other countries. Unfortunately, a European marketing authorisation of such a solution is currently missing and as a consequence paediatric anaesthetists tend to use suboptimal intravenous fluid strategies that may lead to serious morbidity and even mortality because of iatrogenic hyponatraemia, hyperglycaemia or medical errors. To address this issue, the German Scientific Working Group for Paediatric Anaesthesia suggests a European consensus statement on the composition of an appropriate intraoperative solution for infusion in children, which was discussed during a working session at the 2nd Congress of the European Society for Paediatric Anaesthesiology in Berlin in September 2010. As a result, it was recommended that an intraoperative fluid should have an osmolarity close to the physiologic range in children in order to avoid hyponatraemia, an addition of 1-2.5% instead of 5% glucose in order to avoid hypoglycaemia, lipolysis or hyperglycaemia and should also include metabolic anions (i.e. acetate, lactate or malate) as bicarbonate precursors to prevent hyperchloraemic acidosis. Thus, the underlying intention of this consensus statement is to facilitate the granting of a European marketing authorisation for such a solution with the ultimate goal of improving the safety and effectiveness of intraoperative fluid therapy in children. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011; 28: 637-639 Published online 7 June 2011

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available