• M Roessler, K Bode, and M Bauer.
• Zentrum Anästhesiologie, Rettungs- und Intensivmedizin, Georg-August-Universität, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Göttingen, Deutschland, m.roessler@med.uni-goettingen.de.
• Anaesthesist. 2014 Oct 1; 63 (10): 730-44.

AbstractHow fluid resuscitation has to be performed for acute hemorrhage situations is still controversially discussed. Although the forced administration of crystalloids and colloids has been and still is practiced, nowadays there are good arguments that a cautious infusion of crystalloids may be initially sufficient. Saline should no longer be used for fluid resuscitation. The main argument for cautious fluid resuscitation is that no large prospective randomized clinical trials exist which have provided evidence of improved survival when fluid resuscitation is applied in an aggressive manner. The explanation that no positive effect has so far been observed is that fluid resuscitation is thought to boost bleeding by increasing blood pressure and dilutional coagulopathy. Nevertheless, national and international guidelines recommend that fluid resuscitation should be applied at the latest when hemorrhage causes hemodynamic instability. Consideration should be given to the fact that damage control resuscitation per se will neither improve already reduced tissue perfusion nor hemostasis. In acute and possibly rapidly progressing hypovolemic shock, colloids can be used. The third and fourth generations of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) are safe and effective if used correctly and within prescribed limits. If fluid resuscitation is applied with ongoing re-evaluation of the parameters which determine oxygen supply, it should be possible to keep fluid resuscitation restricted without causing undesirable side effects and also to administer a sufficient quantity so that survival of patients is ensured.

10 keywords...

hide…