Abstract
Dear Editor,
Fluid resuscitation is near universal practice in critically ill patients. Despite the frequent use and evidence of harm [1], surprisingly little has been reported with regards to two fundamental questions around Fluid Bolus (FB) practice—why a FB is administered to intensive care patients and has the emerging evidence of associated harm [1] changed this practice? This information would be vital for translational research. We examined the datasets of three large multicentre studies—SAFE [2], SAFE TRIPS [3] and Fluid TRIPS [4], to examine time trends in reasons for FB.
Fluid resuscitation is near universal practice in critically ill patients. Despite the frequent use and evidence of harm [1], surprisingly little has been reported with regards to two fundamental questions around Fluid Bolus (FB) practice—why a FB is administered to intensive care patients and has the emerging evidence of associated harm [1] changed this practice? This information would be vital for translational research. We examined the datasets of three large multicentre studies—SAFE [2], SAFE TRIPS [3] and Fluid TRIPS [4], to examine time trends in reasons for FB.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1284-1285 |
Number of pages | 2 |
Journal | Intensive Care Medicine |
Volume | 46 |
Issue number | 6 |
Early online date | 24 Apr 2020 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Jun 2020 |
Keywords
- Fluid resuscitation
- Fluid Bolus
- intensive care patients
- SAFE
- SAFE TRIPS
- Fluid TRIPS