Key result
Intraoperative fluid therapy with either crystalloids or colloids shows no definitive difference in mortality or major clinical outcomes based on recent evidence-based medicine and meta-analyses.
This review highlights that fluid choice (colloid vs. crystalloid) does not definitively alter mortality, and advocates for goal-directed fluid therapy using hemodynamic monitoring during surgery.
Neither fluid should be prioritized yet; leaves open the value of goal-directed hemodynamic strategies.
Adequate restoration of intravascular volume remains an important therapeutic maneuver in managing the surgical patient. Definition of the ideal volume replacement strategy still remains one of the burning problems. Firstly, the choice between colloid and crystalloid solutions continues to generate controversy. Secondly, the highly controversial crystalloid/colloid dispute has been enlarged to a colloid/colloid debate because of the increasing number of colloids that are available. And lastly, whether high or low volume replacement strategies are favorable for the surgical patient is an another issue for the anesthesiologists. Volume replacement has been hitherto often based on art, dogma and personal beliefs. It was the aim of this overview to present the different solutions and to facilitate the strategies for above three main issues in the field of intraoperative fluid therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jaemin Lee (2009) conducted a review in Surgical patients requiring intraoperative fluid therapy. Plasma volume expanders (colloids and crystalloids) was evaluated. Intraoperative fluid therapy with either crystalloids or colloids shows no definitive difference in mortality or major clinical outcomes based on recent evidence-based medicine and meta-analyses.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: