Review Article | Published:

Intravenous fluid therapy in critically ill adults

Nature Reviews Nephrologyvolume 14pages541557 (2018) | Download Citation

Abstract

Intravenous fluid therapy is one of the most common interventions in acutely ill patients. Each day, over 20% of patients in intensive care units (ICUs) receive intravenous fluid resuscitation, and more than 30% receive fluid resuscitation during their first day in the ICU. Virtually all hospitalized patients receive intravenous fluid to maintain hydration and as diluents for drug administration. Until recently, the amount and type of fluids administered were based on a theory described over 100 years ago, much of which is inconsistent with current physiological data and emerging knowledge. Despite their widespread use, various fluids for intravenous administration have entered clinical practice without a robust evaluation of their safety and efficacy. High-quality, investigator-initiated studies have revealed that some of these fluids have unacceptable toxicity; as a result, several have been withdrawn from the market (while others, controversially, are still in use). The belief that dehydration and hypovolaemia can cause or worsen kidney and other vital organ injury has resulted in liberal approaches to fluid therapy and the view that fluid overload and tissue oedema are ‘normal’ during critical illness; this is quite possibly harming patients. Increasing evidence indicates that restrictive fluid strategies might improve outcomes.

Key points

  • Intravenous fluid administration is one of the most common interventions in acute and critical care medicine, but much of the physiological theory on which practice has been based is flawed.

  • Intravenous fluids were established in clinical practice and licensed for use without robust investigation of their efficacy or safety, although large, high-quality, investigator-initiated trials have now provided such data.

  • Crystalloid fluids should be used for first-line therapy; in most patients, buffered salt solutions seem to offer benefits over normal saline.

  • Albumin administration might be beneficial in patients with sepsis, cirrhosis or infections, but albumin in hypotonic carrier fluid is contraindicated in patients with acute traumatic brain injury.

  • Synthetic colloids, notably hydroxyethyl starch and gelatins, should not be used owing to their unacceptable safety profiles and lack of proven benefits over crystalloids.

  • Strategies that restrict fluid administration might reduce morbidity and mortality, but larger trials are still needed to confirm these promising initial data.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Change history

  • 04 October 2018

    Corrections: Fig. 1: ‘MAP’ inserted before ‘60–65 mmHg; Fig. 3: ‘Echocardiography’ amended to ‘Electrocardiographic’. Fig. 4b additions: two cell nuclei; text labels ‘Large pore transporting plasma proteins’, ‘Small pore network’, ‘Intercellular cleft’; ‘Intact’ and ‘Damaged’; legend updated.

References

  1. 1.

    Cosnett, J. E. The origins of intravenous fluid therapy. Lancet 333, 768–771 (1989).

  2. 2.

    Latta, T. Injections into the veins in cholera. London Med. Gaz. 1832, 379–382 (1832).

  3. 3.

    Latta, T. Malignant cholera. Lancet 2, 274–277 (1832).

  4. 4.

    Lewins, R. Injection of saline in extraordinary quantities into the veins in cases of malignant cholera. Lancet 18, 243–244 (1832).

  5. 5.

    Cecconi, M. et al. Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: a global inception cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 41, 1529–1537 (2015).

  6. 6.

    Lee, J. A. Sydney Ringer (1834–1910) and Alexis Hartmann (1898–1964). Anaesthesia 36, 1115–1121 (1981).

  7. 7.

    Brunkhorst, F. M. et al. Intensive insulin therapy and pentastarch resuscitation in severe sepsis. N. Engl. J. Med. 358, 125–139 (2008).

  8. 8.

    Perner, A. et al. Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer’s acetate in severe sepsis. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 124–134 (2012).

  9. 9.

    Myburgh, J. A. et al. Hydroxyethyl starch or saline for fluid resuscitation in intensive care. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 1901–1911 (2012).

  10. 10.

    Schortgen, F. et al. Effects of hydroxyethylstarch and gelatin on renal function in severe sepsis: a multicentre randomised study. Lancet 357, 911–916 (2001).

  11. 11.

    Landsteiner, K. Zur Kentniss der antifermentativen lytischen und agglutinierenden Wirkungen des Blutserums und der Lymphe. Zentralbl. Bakt. 28, 357–362 (1900).

  12. 12.

    Kendrick, D. B. Blood Program in World War II Ch. 1 (US Army Medical Department Office of Medical History, 1994).

  13. 13.

    Finfer, S. et al. Resuscitation fluid use in critically ill adults: an international cross-sectional study in 391 intensive care units. Crit. Care 14, R185 (2010).

  14. 14.

    Hammond, N. E. et al. Patterns of intravenous fluid resuscitation use in adult intensive care patients between 2007 and 2014: an international cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE 12, e0176292 (2017).

  15. 15.

    Boulain, T. et al. Volume expansion in the first 4 days of shock: a prospective multicentre study in 19 French intensive care units. Intensive Care Med. 41, 248–256 (2014).

  16. 16.

    Miller, T. E., Bunke, M., Nisbet, P. & Brudney, C. S. Fluid resuscitation practice patterns in intensive care units of the USA: a cross-sectional survey of critical care physicians. Perioper. Med. (Lond.) 5, 15 (2016).

  17. 17.

    Vincent, J. L. & DeBacker, D. Circulatory shock. N. Engl. J. Med. 369, 1726–1734 (2013).

  18. 18.

    Myburgh, J. A. & Mythen, M. G. Resuscitation fluids. N. Engl. J. Med. 369, 1243–1251 (2013).

  19. 19.

    Funk, D. J., Jacobsohn, E. & Kumar, A. The role of venous return in critical illness and shock — part I: physiology. Crit. Care Med. 41, 255–262 (2013).

  20. 20.

    Funk, D. J., Jacobsohn, E. & Kumar, A. Role of the venous return in critical illness and shock: part II — shock and mechanical ventilation. Crit. Care Med. 41, 573–579 (2013).

  21. 21.

    Persichini, R. et al. Effects of norepinephrine on mean systemic pressure and venous return in human septic shock. Crit. Care Med. 40, 3146–3153 (2012).

  22. 22.

    Scheeren, T. W. & Vos, J. J. Good old physiology in a modern jacket. Crit. Care Med. 40, 3309–3311 (2012).

  23. 23.

    McLean, A. S. Echocardiography in shock management. Crit. Care 20, 275 (2016).

  24. 24.

    Woodcock, T. E. & Woodcock, T. M. Revised Starling equation and the glycocalyx model of transvascular fluid exchange: an improved paradigm for prescribing intravenous fluid therapy. Br. J. Anaesth. 108, 384–394 (2012).

  25. 25.

    Starling, E. H. On the absorption of fluids from the connective tissue spaces. J. Physiol. 19, 312–326 (1896).

  26. 26.

    Levick, J. R. & Michel, C. C. Microvascular fluid exchange and the revised Starling principle. Cardiovasc. Res. 87, 198–210 (2010).

  27. 27.

    Lukasz, A. et al. Endothelial glycocalyx breakdown is mediated by angiopoietin-2. Cardiovasc. Res. 113, 671–680 (2017).

  28. 28.

    Curry, F. E. Layer upon layer: the functional consequences of disrupting the glycocalyx-endothelial barrier in vivo and in vitro. Cardiovasc. Res. 113, 559–561 (2017).

  29. 29.

    Rabelink, T. J. & de Zeeuw, D. The glycocalyx — linking albuminuria with renal and cardiovascular disease. Nat. Rev. Nephrol. 11, 667–676 (2015).

  30. 30.

    Graham, T. X. Liquid diffusion applied to analysis. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 151, 183–224 (1861).

  31. 31.

    Yunos, N.a. M., Bellomo, R., Story, D. & Kellum, J. Bench-to-bedside review: chloride in critical illness. Crit. Care 14, 226–226 (2010).

  32. 32.

    Wilcox, C. S. Regulation of renal blood flow by plasma chloride. J. Clin. Invest. 71, 726–735 (1983).

  33. 33.

    Pedoto, A. et al. Role of nitric oxide in acidosis-induced intestinal injury in anesthetized rats. J. Lab. Clin. Med. 138, 270–276 (2001).

  34. 34.

    Gan, T. J. et al. Hextend, a physiologically balanced plasma expander for large volume use in major surgery: a randomized phase III clinical trial. Hextend Study Group. Anesth. Analg. 88, 992–998 (1999).

  35. 35.

    Kellum, J. A., Song, M. & Venkataraman, R. Effects of hyperchloremic acidosis on arterial pressure and circulating inflammatory molecules in experimental sepsis. Chest 125, 243–248 (2004).

  36. 36.

    Shaw, A. D. et al. Major complications, mortality, and resource utilization after open abdominal surgery: 0.9% saline compared to Plasma-Lyte. Ann. Surg. 255, 821–829 (2012).

  37. 37.

    Yunos, N. M. et al. Association between a chloride-liberal versus chloride-restrictive intravenous fluid administration strategy and kidney injury in critically ill adults. JAMA 308, 1566–1572 (2012).

  38. 38.

    Singh, P. & Okusa, M. D. The role of tubuloglomerular feedback in the pathogenesis of acute kidney injury. Contrib. Nephrol. 174, 12–21 (2011).

  39. 39.

    Young, P. et al. Effect of a buffered crystalloid solution versus saline on acute kidney injury among patients in the intensive care unit: the SPLIT randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314, 1701–1710 (2015).

  40. 40.

    Self, W. H. et al. Balanced crystalloids versus saline in noncritically ill adults. N. Engl. J. Med. 378, 819–828 (2018).

  41. 41.

    Semler, M. W. et al. Balanced crystalloids versus saline in critically ill adults. N. Engl. J. Med. 378, 829–839 (2018).

  42. 42.

    Bampoe, S. et al. Perioperative administration of buffered versus non-buffered crystalloid intravenous fluid to improve outcomes following adult surgical procedures. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 9, CD004089 (2017).

  43. 43.

    Harris, T., Thomas, G. O. & Brohi, K. Early fluid resuscitation in severe trauma. BMJ 345, e5752 (2012).

  44. 44.

    Bickell, W. H. et al. Immediate versus delayed fluid resuscitation for hypotensive patients with penetrating torso injuries. N. Engl. J. Med. 331, 1105–1109 (1994).

  45. 45.

    The SAFE Study Investigators et al. Saline or albumin for fluid resuscitation in patients with traumatic brain injury. N. Engl. J. Med. 357, 874–884 (2007).

  46. 46.

    Iguchi, N. et al. Differential effects of isotonic and hypotonic 4% albumin solution on intracranial pressure and renal perfusion and function. Crit. Care Resusc. 20, 48–53 (2018).

  47. 47.

    Cooper, D. J. et al. Prehospital hypertonic saline resuscitation of patients with hypotension and severe traumatic brain injury: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 291, 1350–1357 (2004).

  48. 48.

    Morgan, T. J. The ideal crystalloid — what is ‘balanced’? Curr. Opin. Crit. Care 19, 299–307 (2013).

  49. 49.

    Starling, E. H. Principles of Human Physiology (Lea & Febiger, 1912).

  50. 50.

    Finfer, S. et al. A comparison of albumin and saline for fluid resuscitation in the intensive care unit. N. Engl. J. Med. 350, 2247–2256 (2004).

  51. 51.

    Caironi, P. et al. Albumin replacement in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. N. Engl. J. Med. 370, 1412–1421 (2014).

  52. 52.

    Charpentier, J. & Mira, J. Efficacy and tolerance of hyperoncotic albumin administration in septic shock patients: the EARSS study [abstract]. Intensive Care Med. 37 (Suppl. 1), S115–0438 (2011).

  53. 53.

    Tomita, H., Ito, U., Tone, O., Masaoka, H. & Tominaga, B. High colloid oncotic therapy for contusional brain edema. Acta Neurochir. Suppl. 60, 547–549 (1994).

  54. 54.

    Caironi, P. & Gattinoni, L. The clinical use of albumin: the point of view of a specialist in intensive care. Blood Transfus. 7, 259–267 (2009).

  55. 55.

    The SAFE Study Investigators et al. Effect of baseline serum albumin concentration on outcome of resuscitation with albumin or saline in patients in intensive care units: analysis of data from the saline versus albumin fluid evaluation (SAFE) study. BMJ 333, 1044–1046 (2006).

  56. 56.

    Cooper, D. J. et al. Albumin resuscitation for traumatic brain injury: is intracranial hypertension the cause of increased mortality? J. Neurotrauma 30, 512–518 (2013).

  57. 57.

    Finfer, S. et al. Impact of albumin compared to saline on organ function and mortality of patients with severe sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 37, 86–96 (2011).

  58. 58.

    Sort, P. et al. Effect of intravenous albumin on renal impairment and mortality in patients with cirrhosis and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. N. Engl. J. Med. 341, 403–409 (1999).

  59. 59.

    Guevara, M. et al. Albumin for bacterial infections other than spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhosis. A randomized, controlled study. J. Hepatol. 57, 759–765 (2012).

  60. 60.

    Martin, G. S. et al. Albumin and furosemide therapy in hypoproteinemic patients with acute lung injury. Crit. Care Med. 30, 2175–2182 (2002).

  61. 61.

    Martin, G. S. et al. A randomized, controlled trial of furosemide with or without albumin in hypoproteinemic patients with acute lung injury. Crit. Care Med. 33, 1681–1687 (2005).

  62. 62.

    Mutter, T. C., Ruth, C. A. & Dart, A. B. Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) versus other fluid therapies: effects on kidney function. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 7, CD007594 (2013).

  63. 63.

    Schick, M. A. et al. The impact of crystalloid and colloid infusion on the kidney in rodent sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 36, 541–548 (2010).

  64. 64.

    Wiedermann, C. J. & Joannidis, M. Accumulation of hydroxyethyl starch in human and animal tissues: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med. 40, 160–170 (2014).

  65. 65.

    Zarychanski, R. et al. Association of hydroxyethyl starch administration with mortality and acute kidney injury in critically ill patients requiring volume resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 309, 678–688 (2013).

  66. 66.

    Cittanova, M. L. et al. Effect of hydroxyethylstarch in brain-dead kidney donors on renal function in kidney-transplant recipients. Lancet 348, 1620–1622 (1996).

  67. 67.

    Annane, D. et al. Effects of fluid resuscitation with colloids versus crystalloids on mortality in critically ill patients presenting with hypovolemic shock: the CRISTAL randomized trial. JAMA 310, 1809–1817 (2013).

  68. 68.

    Ertmer, C., Annane, D. & Van Der Linden, P. Is the literature inconclusive about the harm from HES? Yes. Intensive Care Med. 43, 1520–1522 (2017).

  69. 69.

    European Medicines Agency. Hydroxyethyl-starch solutions (HES) should no longer be used in patients with sepsis or burn injuries or in critically ill patients. EMA http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Referrals_document/Solutions_for_infusion_containing_hydroxyethyl_starch/European_Commission_final_decision/WC500162361.pdf (2014).

  70. 70.

    US Food and Drug Administration. Vouluven (6% Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 in 0.9% sodium chloride injection), for administration by intravenous infusion. FDA https://www.fda.gov/downloads/biologicsbloodvaccines/bloodbloodproducts/approvedproducts/newdrugapplicationsndas/ucm083138.pdf (2007).

  71. 71.

    European Medicines Agency. Hydroxyethyl-starch solutions for infusion to be suspended – CMDh endorses PRAC recommendation: suspension due to serious risks of kidney injury and death in certain patient populations. EMA http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/news_and_events/news/2018/01/news_detail_002892.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c1 (2018).

  72. 72.

    Bayer, O. et al. Effects of fluid resuscitation with synthetic colloids or crystalloids alone on shock reversal, fluid balance, and patient outcomes in patients with severe sepsis: a prospective sequential analysis. Crit. Care Med. 40, 2543–2551 (2012).

  73. 73.

    Moeller, C. et al. How safe is gelatin? A systematic review and meta-analysis of gelatin-containing plasma expanders versus crystalloids and albumin. J. Crit. Care 35, 75–83 (2016).

  74. 74.

    Pisano, A., Landoni, G. & Bellomo, R. The risk of infusing gelatin? Die-hard misconceptions and forgotten (or ignored) truths. Minerva Anestesiol. 82, 1107–1114 (2016).

  75. 75.

    Perel, P., Roberts, I. & Ker, K. Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2, CD000567 (2013).

  76. 76.

    Bellomo, R., Prowle, J., Echeverri, J., Ligabo, V. & Ronco, C. Fluid management in septic acute kidney injury and cardiorenal syndromes. Contrib. Nephrol. 165, 206–218 (2010).

  77. 77.

    Ronco, C., Haapio, M., House, A., Anavekar, N. & Bellomo, R. Cardiorenal syndrome. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 52, 1527–1539 (2008).

  78. 78.

    Bagshaw, S. M. et al. Epidemiology of cardio-renal syndromes: workgroup statements from the 7th ADQI consensus conference. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 25, 1406–1416 (2010).

  79. 79.

    Davenport, A. et al. ADQI 7: the clinical management of the cardio-renal syndromes: work group statements from the 7th ADQI consensus conference. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 25, 2077–2089 (2010).

  80. 80.

    Bagshaw, S. M. et al. The effect of low-dose furosemide in critically ill patients with early acute kidney injury: a pilot randomized blinded controlled trial (the SPARK study). J. Crit. Care 42, 138–146 (2017).

  81. 81.

    Grams, M. E., Estrella, M. M., Coresh, J., Brower, R. G. & Liu, K. D. Fluid balance, diuretic use, and mortality in acute kidney injury. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 6, 966–973 (2011).

  82. 82.

    Levy, M. M., Evans, L. E. & Rhodes, A. The surviving sepsis campaign bundle: 2018 update. Crit. Care Med. 46, 997–1000 (2018).

  83. 83.

    Bihari, S., Prakash, S. & Bersten, A. D. Post resusicitation fluid boluses in severe sepsis or septic shock: prevalence and efficacy (PRICE study). Shock 40, 28–34 (2013).

  84. 84.

    Glassford, N. J. et al. Defining the characteristics and expectations of fluid bolus therapy: a worldwide perspective. J. Crit. Care 35, 126–132 (2016).

  85. 85.

    Chowdhury, A. H., Cox, E. F., Francis, S. T. & Lobo, D. N. A randomized, controlled, double-blind crossover study on the effects of 2-l infusions of 0.9% saline and Plasma-Lyte 148 on renal blood flow velocity and renal cortical tissue perfusion in healthy volunteers. Ann. Surg. 256, 18–24 (2012).

  86. 86.

    Boyd, J. H., Forbes, J., Nakada, T. A., Walley, K. R. & Russell, J. A. Fluid resuscitation in septic shock: a positive fluid balance and elevated central venous pressure are associated with increased mortality. Crit. Care Med. 39, 259–265 (2011).

  87. 87.

    Legrand, M. et al. Association between systemic hemodynamics and septic acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: a retrospective observational study. Crit. Care 17, R278 (2013).

  88. 88.

    Marik, P. E., Baram, M. & Vahid, B. Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares. Chest 134, 172–178 (2008).

  89. 89.

    Wong, B. T. et al. Mean arterial pressure and mean perfusion pressure deficit in septic acute kidney injury. J. Crit. Care 30, 975–981 (2015).

  90. 90.

    Cruces, P. et al. The renal compartment: a hydraulic view. Intensive Care Med. Exp. 2, 26 (2014).

  91. 91.

    Okusa, M. D. The changing pattern of acute kidney injury: from one to multiple organ failure. Contrib. Nephrol. 165, 153–158 (2010).

  92. 92.

    Virzi, G., Day, S., de Cal, M., Vescovo, G. & Ronco, C. Heart–kidney crosstalk and role of humoral signaling in critical illness. Crit. Care 18, 201 (2014).

  93. 93.

    Hjortrup, P. B. et al. Restricting volumes of resuscitation fluid in adults with septic shock after initial management: the CLASSIC randomised, parallel-group, multicentre feasibility trial. Intensive Care Med. 42, 1695–1705 (2016).

  94. 94.

    The National Heart Lung and Blood Institute Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Clinical Trials Network et al. Comparison of two fluid-management strategies in acute lung injury. N. Engl. J. Med. 354, 2564–2575 (2006).

  95. 95.

    PRISM Investigators et al. Early goal-directed therapy for septic shock — a patient-level meta-analysis. N. Engl. J. Med. 376, 2223–2234 (2017).

  96. 96.

    Maitland, K. et al. Mortality after fluid bolus in African children with severe infection. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 2483–2495 (2011).

  97. 97.

    Andrews, B. et al. Effect of an early resuscitation protocol on in-hospital mortality among adults with sepsis and hypotension: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318, 1233–1240 (2017).

  98. 98.

    Uchino, S. et al. Acute renal failure in critically ill patients: a multinational, multicenter study. JAMA 294, 813–818 (2005).

  99. 99.

    Myles, P. S. et al. Restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery. N. Engl. J. Med. 378, 2263–2274 (2018).

  100. 100.

    Martensson, J. & Bellomo, R. Are all fluids bad for the kidney? Curr. Opin. Crit. Care 21, 292–301 (2015).

  101. 101.

    Donner, A., Birkett, N. & Buck, C. Randomization by cluster. Sample size requirements and analysis. Am. J. Epidemiol. 114, 906–914 (1981).

  102. 102.

    Connelly, L. B. Balancing the number and size of sites: an economic approach to the optimal design of cluster samples. Control. Clin. Trials 24, 544–559 (2003).

  103. 103.

    Self, W. H. et al. Saline versus balanced crystalloids for intravenous fluid therapy in the emergency department: study protocol for a cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover trial. Trials 18, 178 (2017).

  104. 104.

    McKown, A. C. et al. Predicting major adverse kidney events among critically ill adults using the electronic health record. J. Med. Syst. 41, 156 (2017).

  105. 105.

    Semler, M. W. et al. Balanced crystalloids versus saline in the intensive care unit. The SALT randomized trial. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 195, 1362–1372 (2017).

  106. 106.

    Angus, D. C. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of early goal-directed therapy for septic shock: the ARISE, ProCESS and ProMISe Investigators. Intensive Care Med. 41, 1549–1560 (2015).

  107. 107.

    Rivers, E. et al. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N. Engl. J. Med. 345, 1368–1377 (2001).

  108. 108.

    van den Berghe, G. et al. Intensive insulin therapy in critically ill patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 345, 1359–1367 (2001).

  109. 109.

    NICE-SUGAR Study Investigators et al. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 360, 1283–1297 (2009).

  110. 110.

    Myburgh, J. Patient-centered outcomes and resuscitation fluids. N. Engl. J. Med. 378, 862–863 (2018).

  111. 111.

    Zampieri, F. G. et al. Study protocol for the Balanced Solution Versus Saline in Intensive Care Study (BaSICS): a factorial randomised trial. Crit. Care Resusc. 19, 175–182 (2017).

  112. 112.

    Hammond, N. E. et al. The Plasma-Lyte 148 v Saline (PLUS) study protocol: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of the effect of intensive care fluid therapy on mortality. Crit. Care Resusc. 19, 239–246 (2017).

  113. 113.

    Kellum, J. A. Abnormal saline and the history of intravenous fluids. Nat. Rev. Nephrol. 14, 358–360 (2018).

  114. 114.

    Bellomo, R. et al. Acute renal failure — definition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information technology needs: the Second International Consensus Conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Group. Crit. Care 8, R204–R212 (2004).

  115. 115.

    Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Acute Kidney Injury Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for Acute Kidney Injury. Kidney Int. Suppl. 2, 1–138 (2012).

  116. 116.

    Liu, K. D. et al. Acute kidney injury in patients with acute lung injury: impact of fluid accumulation on classification of acute kidney injury and associated outcomes. Crit. Care Med. 39, 2665–2671 (2011).

  117. 117.

    Moore, E. et al. The impact of fluid balance on the detection, classification and outcome of acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery. J. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesth. 29, 1229–1235 (2015).

  118. 118.

    Glassford, N. J. et al. The nature and discriminatory value of urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin in critically ill patients at risk of acute kidney injury. Intensive Care Med. 39, 1714–1724 (2013).

  119. 119.

    Angus, D. C. The lingering consequences of sepsis: a hidden public health disaster? JAMA 304, 1833–1834 (2010).

  120. 120.

    Iwashyna, T. J., Ely, E. W., Smith, D. M. & Langa, K. M. Long-term cognitive impairment and functional disability among survivors of severe sepsis. JAMA 304, 1787–1794 (2010).

  121. 121.

    Williamson, P. R. et al. The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials 18, 280 (2017).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors’ research is funded by Department of Health – National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) grants 1117230 to S.F., 1081884 to J.M. and 1136432 to R.B.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    • Simon Finfer
    •  & John Myburgh
  2. School of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    • Rinaldo Bellomo

Authors

  1. Search for Simon Finfer in:

  2. Search for John Myburgh in:

  3. Search for Rinaldo Bellomo in:

Contributions

All authors contributed to researching data for this article, discussions of its content, writing the paper and review or editing of the manuscript before submission.

Competing interests

S.F., J.M. and R.B. declare that their employers have received research grants and travel reimbursement from Baxter Healthcare, CSL Bioplasma and Fresenius Kabi for the conduct of investigator-initiated clinical trials.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon Finfer.

Glossary

Hypovolaemia

A state characterized by the loss of an effective intravascular volume.

Tonicity

The capability of a solution to exert osmotic pressure across a cellular membrane.

Strong ion difference

Strong ions are cations and anions that exist as dissociated charged particles at physiological pH. The strong ion difference of a solution is the difference between the sums of concentrations of strong cations and strong ions. In plasma, the strong ion difference is (Na+ + K+ + Ca2+ + Mg2+) − (Cl − [other strong anions]) and is normally around 40 mEq/l.

Patient-centred outcomes

Outcomes that measure how a patient feels, functions or survives.

Damage control resuscitation

A systematic approach to the management of severe trauma that involves haemostatic resuscitation, including permissive hypotension to limit non-blood-product fluid resuscitation, which can worsen the coagulopathy of trauma. Might also incorporate damage control surgery, which prioritizes management of the metabolic derangement of ongoing bleeding over the need for definitive surgery.

Iso-oncotic

A solution having a colloid osmotic pressure similar to that of plasma.

Hyperoncotic

A solution having a colloid osmotic pressure higher than that of plasma.

About this article

Publication history

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41581-018-0044-0

Further reading