Intravenous Fluids

Chapter

Abstract

Precise and careful management of the administration of intravenous fluids is a critical skill for the surgical intensivist. In order to better understand the function of intravenous fluids, we will discuss the various body compartments and their constituents and how fluids can modify the character of those compartments. We will explain the exact composition of the commonly available intravenous fluids, as well as the evidence for their use in typical patient populations and the history behind their genesis. Finally, we will discuss in detail traditional means of volume assessment, invasive monitoring, and newer technologies that utilize minimally invasive or even completely noninvasive monitoring of volume status. At the conclusion of the chapter, the surgical intensivist should be able to rapidly assess a patient’s volume status and administer the appropriate fluid in nearly any scenario.

Keywords

Intravenous fluids Crystalloid Colloid Volume assessment Invasive monitoring 

References

  1. 1.
    Magnus-Levy A. Physiologie des Stoffwechesels: Handbuch der Pathologie des Stoffwechesels. Noorden CV, editor. Berlin: 1906.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baumgartner RN, et al. Body composition in elderly people: effect of criterion estimates on predictive equations. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991;53(6):1345–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Williams EL, et al. The effect of intravenous lactated Ringer’s solution versus 0.9% sodium chloride solution on serum osmolality in human volunteers. Anesth Analg. 1999;88(5):999–1003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arieff AI. Fatal postoperative pulmonary edema: pathogenesis and literature review. Chest. 1999;115(5):1371–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bishop MH, et al. The relationship between ARDS, pulmonary infiltration, fluid balance, and hemodynamics in critically ill surgical patients. Am Surg. 1991;57(12):785–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Plurad D, et al. The decreasing incidence of late posttraumatic acute respiratory distress syndrome: the potential role of lung protective ventilation and conservative transfusion practice. J Trauma. 2007;63(1):1–7; discussion 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martin M, et al. The decreasing incidence and mortality of acute respiratory distress syndrome after injury: a 5-year observational study. J Trauma. 2005;59(5):1107–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tambyraja AL, et al. Patterns and clinical outcomes associated with routine intravenous sodium and fluid administration after colorectal resection. World J Surg. 2004;28(10):1046–51; discussion 1051-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lobo DN, et al. Effect of salt and water balance on recovery of gastrointestinal function after elective colonic resection: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;359(9320):1812–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brandstrup B, et al. Effects of intravenous fluid restriction on postoperative complications: comparison of two perioperative fluid regimens: a randomized assessor-blinded multicenter trial. Ann Surg. 2003;238(5):641–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nisanevich V, et al. Effect of intraoperative fluid management on outcome after intraabdominal surgery. Anesthesiology. 2005;103(1):25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shaw A, Raghunathan K. Fluid management in cardiac surgery: colloid or crystalloid? Anesthesiol Clin. 2013;31(2):269–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tocantins LM, Carroll RT, Holburn RH. The clot accelerating effect of dilution on blood and plasma. Relation to the mechanism of coagulation of normal and hemophilic blood. Blood. 1951;6(8):720–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ng KF, Lam CC, Chan LC. In vivo effect of haemodilution with saline on coagulation: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Anaesth. 2002;88(4):475–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Janvrin SB, Davies G, Greenhalgh RM. Postoperative deep vein thrombosis caused by intravenous fluids during surgery. Br J Surg. 1980;67(10):690–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ruttmann TG, Jamest MF, Lombard EH. Haemodilution-induced enhancement of coagulation is attenuated in vitro by restoring antithrombin III to pre-dilution concentrations. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2001;29(5):489–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rhee P, et al. Human neutrophil activation and increased adhesion by various resuscitation fluids. Crit Care Med. 2000;28(1):74–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Awad S, Allison SP, Lobo DN. The history of 0.9% saline. Clin Nutr. 2008;27(2):179–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rhee P, et al. Lactated Ringer’s solution resuscitation causes neutrophil activation after hemorrhagic shock. J Trauma. 1998;44(2):313–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Koustova E, et al. Effects of lactated Ringer’s solutions on human leukocytes. J Trauma. 2002;52(5):872–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nees JE, et al. Comparison of cardiorespiratory effects of crystalline hemoglobin, whole blood, albumin, and Ringer’s lactate in the resuscitation of hemorrhagic shock in dogs. Surgery. 1978;83(6):639–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rizoli S. PlasmaLyte. J Trauma. 2011;70(5 Suppl):S17–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shaw AD, et al. Major complications, mortality, and resource utilization after open abdominal surgery: 0.9% saline compared to Plasma-Lyte. Ann Surg. 2012;255(5):821–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McFarlane C, Lee A. A comparison of Plasmalyte 148 and 0.9% saline for intra-operative fluid replacement. Anaesthesia. 1994;49(9):779–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Young JB, et al. Saline versus Plasma-Lyte A in initial resuscitation of trauma patients: a randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2014;259(2):255–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Younes RN, et al. Hypertonic solutions in the treatment of hypovolemic shock: a prospective, randomized study in patients admitted to the emergency room. Surgery. 1992;111(4):380–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dubick MA, Shek P, Wade CE. ROC trials update on prehospital hypertonic saline resuscitation in the aftermath of the US-Canadian trials. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2013;68(6):883–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Velasco IT, et al. Hyperosmotic NaCl and severe hemorrhagic shock. Am J Phys. 1980;239(5):H664–73.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bulger EM, et al. Out-of-hospital hypertonic resuscitation after traumatic hypovolemic shock: a randomized, placebo controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2011;253(3):431–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Holcroft JW. The hypertonic saline trial: a possible downside to the gold standard of double blinding. Ann Surg. 2011;253(3):442–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Joseph B, et al. The physiological effects of hyperosmolar resuscitation: 5% vs 3% hypertonic saline. Am J Surg. 2014;208(5):697–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    DuBose JJ, et al. Clinical experience using 5% hypertonic saline as a safe alternative fluid for use in trauma. J Trauma. 2010;68(5):1172–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Powers KA, et al. Twenty-five percent albumin prevents lung injury following shock/resuscitation. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(9):2355–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Caironi P, Gattinoni L. The clinical use of albumin: the point of view of a specialist in intensive care. Blood Transfus. 2009;7(4):259–67.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Finfer S, et al. A comparison of albumin and saline for fluid resuscitation in the intensive care unit. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(22):2247–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Perel P, Roberts I, Ker K. Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(2):CD000567.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Delaney AP, et al. The role of albumin as a resuscitation fluid for patients with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(2):386–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rochwerg B, et al. Fluid resuscitation in sepsis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(5):347–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Conhaim RL, et al. Pulmonary capillary sieving of hetastarch is not altered by LPS-induced sepsis. J Trauma. 1999;46(5):800–8; discussion 808-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rosengren S, Ley K, Arfors KE. Dextran sulfate prevents LTB4-induced permeability increase, but not neutrophil emigration, in the hamster cheek pouch. Microvasc Res. 1989;38(3):243–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hayes PD, et al. Transcranial Doppler-directed Dextran-40 therapy is a cost-effective method of preventing carotid thrombosis after carotid endarterectomy. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2000;19(1):56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cigna E, et al. Postoperative care in finger replantation: our case-load and review of the literature. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015;19(14):2552–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Feest TG. Low molecular weight dextran: a continuing cause of acute renal failure. Br Med J. 1976;2(6047):1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Farber A, et al. Intraoperative use of dextran is associated with cardiac complications after carotid endarterectomy. J Vasc Surg. 2013;57(3):635–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Brunkhorst FM, et al. Intensive insulin therapy and pentastarch resuscitation in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(2):125–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Perner A, et al. Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer’s acetate in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(2):124–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bartels K, Thiele RH, Gan TJ. Rational fluid management in today’s ICU practice. Crit Care. 2013;17(Suppl 1):S6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Marik PE, Baram M, Vahid B. Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares. Chest. 2008;134(1):172–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Swan HJ, et al. Catheterization of the heart in man with use of a flow-directed balloon-tipped catheter. N Engl J Med. 1970;283(9):447–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Harvey S, et al. Assessment of the clinical effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in management of patients in intensive care (PAC-Man): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366(9484):472–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Barmparas G, et al. Swan-Ganz catheter use in trauma patients can be reduced without negatively affecting outcomes. World J Surg. 2011;35(8):1809–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cioccari L, et al. Hemodynamic assessment of critically ill patients using a miniaturized transesophageal echocardiography probe. Crit Care. 2013;17(3):R121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Abbas SM, Hill AG. Systematic review of the literature for the use of oesophageal Doppler monitor for fluid replacement in major abdominal surgery. Anaesthesia. 2008;63(1):44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pearse RM, et al. Effect of a perioperative, cardiac output-guided hemodynamic therapy algorithm on outcomes following major gastrointestinal surgery: a randomized clinical trial and systematic review. JAMA. 2014;311(21):2181–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Khwannimit B, Bhurayanontachai R. Prediction of fluid responsiveness in septic shock patients: comparing stroke volume variation by FloTrac/Vigileo and automated pulse pressure variation. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2012;29(2):64–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Acute Care Surgery, Department of SurgeryGrady Memorial HospitalAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations