Choice of fluid type: physiological concepts and perioperative indications.

The consensus that i.v. resuscitation fluids should be considered as drugs with specific dose recommendations, contraindications, and side-effects has led to an increased attention for the choice of fluid during perioperative care. In particular, the debate concerning possible adverse effects of unbalanced fluids and hydroxyethyl starches resulted in a re-evaluation of the roles of different fluid types in the perioperative setting. This review provides a concise overview of the current knowledge regarding the efficacy and safety of distinct fluid types for perioperative use. First, basic physiological aspects and possible side-effects are explained. Second, we focus on considerations regarding fluid choice for specific perioperative indications based on an analysis of available randomized controlled trials.

Prehospital fluid administration in patients with severe traumatic brain injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital management of severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) focuses on preventing secondary brain injury. Therefore, hypotension should be prevented, or if present, should be promptly treated in order to maintain optimal cerebral perfusion pressure. Fluid resuscitation is a traditional mainstay in the prehospital treatment of hypotension, however, the choice of fluid type that is to be administered in the prehospital setting is the subject of an on-going debate. This systematic review and meta-analysis was therefore performed to assess the effect of different fluid types on outcome in patients with severe TBI. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched for articles up to March 2020. Studies comparing two or more prehospital administered fluid types with suspected or confirmed severe TBI were deemed eligible for inclusion. Studied outcomes were mortality and (extended) Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS). The meta-analysis tested for differences in survival between hypertonic saline (HTS) and normotonic crystalloids (i.e. normal saline or Lactated Ringer's) and between hypertonic saline with dextran (HSD) and normotonic crystalloids. The systematic review is registered in the PROSPERO register with number CRD42020140423. RESULTS: This literature search yielded a total of 519 articles, of which 12 were included in the systematic review and 6 were included in the meta-analysis. Eleven studies found no statistically significant difference in survival between patients treated with different fluid types (e.g. normal saline and hypertonic saline). All studies assessing neurological outcome, measured through (extended) GOS, found no statistically significant difference between different fluid types. Meta-analysis showed no better survival for patients treated with HSD, when compared to normotonic crystalloids (overall RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93-1.06). Moreover, HTS compared to normotonic crystalloids does not result in a better survival (overall RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.97-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis did not demonstrate a survival or neurological benefit for one specific fluid type administered in the prehospital setting.

Discrepancy between the initial assessment of injury severity and post hoc determination of injury severity in patients with apparently mild traumatic brain injury: a retrospective multicenter cohort analysis.

PURPOSE: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of trauma-related visits to emergency departments (ED). Determination of monitoring requirements of patients with apparently mild TBI is challenging. Patients may turn out to be more severely injured than initially assumed, and failure to identify these patients constitutes a serious threat to patient safety. We, therefore, aimed to identify clinical risk factors for more severe injuries in patients with apparently mild TBI. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort analysis performed at two level I trauma centers, 808 patients aged ≥ 16 presenting to the ED with head trauma and a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score 13-15 who received a head CT scan were studied. Discrepancies between the initial TBI severity as determined by GCS and severity as determined post hoc by the Head Abbreviated Injury Score were assessed. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify risk factors of such discrepancies. RESULTS: 104 (12.9%) patients were more severely injured than initially classified. A GCS < 15 at presentation (GCS 13: OR 6.2, [95% CI 3.8-9.9]; GCS 14: OR 2.7, [2.0-3.7]), an SpO2 < 90% (OR 5.4, [1.2-23.4]), loss of consciousness (OR 2.3, [1.5-3.5]), absence of equal and reactive pupils (OR 2.1, [1.6-2.7]), transport by ambulance (OR 2.0, [1.7-2.4]), and use of anticoagulant drugs (OR 1.2, [1.1-1.3]) were independent risk factors of more severe injury. CONCLUSIONS: Six risk factors of more severe injury in patients presenting with apparently mild TBI were identified. Patients with any of these factors should be thoroughly monitored for signs of neurologic deterioration.