4.5 Review

Principles of fluid management and stewardship in septic shock: it is time to consider the four D's and the four phases of fluid therapy

期刊

ANNALS OF INTENSIVE CARE
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1186/s13613-018-0402-x

关键词

Fluids; Fluid therapy; Fluid management; Fluid stewardship; Four D's; Four indications; Four hits; Four phases; Four questions; Resuscitation; Antibiotics; Drug; Dose; Duration; De-escalation; De-resuscitation; Maintenance; Replacement; Goal-directed therapy; Monitoring; Fluid responsiveness; Passive leg raising

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In patients with septic shock, the administration of fluids during initial hemodynamic resuscitation remains a major therapeutic challenge. We are faced with many open questions regarding the type, dose and timing of intravenous fluid administration. There are only four major indications for intravenous fluid administration: aside from resuscitation, intravenous fluids have many other uses including maintenance and replacement of total body water and electrolytes, as carriers for medications and for parenteral nutrition. In this paradigm-shifting review, we discuss different fluid management strategies including early adequate goal-directed fluid management, late conservative fluid management and late goal-directed fluid removal. In addition, we expand on the concept of the four D's of fluid therapy, namely drug, dosing, duration and de-escalation. During the treatment of patients with septic shock, four phases of fluid therapy should be considered in order to provide answers to four basic questions. These four phases are the resuscitation phase, the optimization phase, the stabilization phase and the evacuation phase. The four questions are When to start intravenous fluids?, When to stop intravenous fluids?, When to start de-resuscitation or active fluid removal? and finally When to stop de-resuscitation? In analogy to the way we handle antibiotics in critically ill patients, it is time for fluid stewardship.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据