4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

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

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 30, 期 12, 页码 2222-2229

出版社

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

关键词

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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

4.6
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