Vascular access, fluid resuscitation, and blood transfusion in pediatric trauma.

Trauma care in the general population has largely become protocol-driven, with an emphasis on fast and efficient treatment, good team communication at all levels of care including prehospital care, initial resuscitation, intensive care, and rehabilitation. Most available literature on trauma care has focused on adults, allowing the potential to apply concepts from adult care to pediatric care. But there remain issues that will always be specific to pediatric patients that may not translate from adults. Several new devices such as intraosseous (IO) needle systems and techniques such as ultrasonography to cannulate central and peripheral veins have become available for integration into our pre-existing trauma care system for children. This review will focus specifically on the latest techniques and evidence available for establishing intravenous access, rational approaches to fluid resuscitation, and blood product transfusion in the pediatric trauma patient.

Fluid resuscitation practice patterns in intensive care units of the USA: a cross-sectional survey of critical care physicians.

BACKGROUND: Fluid resuscitation is a cornerstone of intensive care treatment, yet there is a lack of agreement on how various types of fluids should be used in critically ill patients with different disease states. Therefore, our goal was to investigate the practice patterns of fluid utilization for resuscitation of adult patients in intensive care units (ICUs) within the USA. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of 502 physicians practicing in medical and surgical ICUs. Survey questions were designed to assess clinical decision-making processes for 3 types of patients who need volume expansion: (1) not bleeding and not septic, (2) bleeding but not septic, (3) requiring resuscitation for sepsis. First-choice fluid used in fluid boluses for these 3 patient types was requested from the respondents. Descriptive statistics were performed using a Kruskal-Wallis test to evaluate differences among the physician groups. Follow-up tests, including t tests, were conducted to evaluate differences between ICU types, hospital settings, and bolus volume. RESULTS: Fluid resuscitation varied with respect to preferences for the factors to determine volume status and preferences for fluid types. The 3 most frequently preferred volume indicators were blood pressure, urine output, and central venous pressure. Regardless of the patient type, the most preferred fluid type was crystalloid, followed by 5 % albumin and then 6 % hydroxyethyl starches (HES) 450/0.70 and 6 % HES 600/0.75. Surprisingly, up to 10 % of physicians still chose HES as the first choice of fluid for resuscitation in sepsis. The clinical specialty and the practice setting of the treating physicians also influenced fluid choices. CONCLUSIONS: Practice patterns of fluid resuscitation varied in the USA, depending on patient characteristics, clinical specialties, and practice settings of the treating physicians.

New evidence in trauma resuscitation - is 1:1:1 the answer?

Traumatic injury is a common problem, with over five million worldwide deaths from trauma per year. An estimated 10 to 20% of these deaths are potentially preventable with better control of bleeding. Damage control resuscitation involves early delivery of plasma and platelets as a primary resuscitation approach to minimize trauma-induced coagulopathy. Plasma, red blood cell and platelet ratios of 1:1:1 appear to be the best substitution for fresh whole blood; however, the current literature consists only of survivor bias-prone observational studies.

Perioperative fluid therapy: a statement from the international Fluid Optimization Group.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative fluid therapy remains a highly debated topic. Its purpose is to maintain or restore effective circulating blood volume during the immediate perioperative period. Maintaining effective circulating blood volume and pressure are key components of assuring adequate organ perfusion while avoiding the risks associated with either organ hypo- or hyperperfusion. Relative to perioperative fluid therapy, three inescapable conclusions exist: overhydration is bad, underhydration is bad, and what we assume about the fluid status of our patients may be incorrect. There is wide variability of practice, both between individuals and institutions. The aims of this paper are to clearly define the risks and benefits of fluid choices within the perioperative space, to describe current evidence-based methodologies for their administration, and ultimately to reduce the variability with which perioperative fluids are administered. METHODS: Based on the abovementioned acknowledgements, a group of 72 researchers, well known within the field of fluid resuscitation, were invited, via email, to attend a meeting that was held in Chicago in 2011 to discuss perioperative fluid therapy. From the 72 invitees, 14 researchers representing 7 countries attended, and thus, the international Fluid Optimization Group (FOG) came into existence. These researches, working collaboratively, have reviewed the data from 162 different fluid resuscitation papers including both operative and intensive care unit populations. This manuscript is the result of 3 years of evidence-based, discussions, analysis, and synthesis of the currently known risks and benefits of individual fluids and the best methods for administering them. RESULTS: The results of this review paper provide an overview of the components of an effective perioperative fluid administration plan and address both the physiologic principles and outcomes of fluid administration. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that both perioperative fluid choice and therapy be individualized. Patients should receive fluid therapy guided by predefined physiologic targets. Specifically, fluids should be administered when patients require augmentation of their perfusion and are also volume responsive. This paper provides a general approach to fluid therapy and practical recommendations.