RESUMO
Nearly 2 centuries have passed since the use of intravenous fluid became a foundational component of clinical practice. Despite a steady stream of published investigations on the topic, questions surrounding the choice, dose, timing, targets, and cost-effectiveness of various fluid options remain insufficiently answered. In recent years, 2 of the most debated topics reference the role of albumin in acute care and the safety of normal saline. Although albumin has a place in therapy for specific patient populations, its high cost relative to other fluids makes it a less desirable option for hospitals and health systems with escalating formulary scrutiny. Pharmacists bear responsibility for reconciling this disparity and supporting the rational use of albumin in acute care through a careful evaluation of recently published literature. In parallel, it has become clear that crystalloids should no longer be considered a homogenous class of fluids. The past reliance on normal saline has been questioned due to recent findings of renal dysfunction attributable to the solution's supraphysiologic chloride concentration. These safety concerns with 0.9% sodium chloride may result in a practice shift toward more routine use of "balanced crystalloids," such as lactated Ringer's or Plasma-Lyte, that mimic the composition of extracellular fluid. The purpose of this review is to summarize the evidence regarding these 2 important fluid controversies that are likely to affect hospital pharmacists in the coming decades - the evidence-based use of human albumin and the rising role of balanced salt solutions in clinical practice.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to determine if a modified 4T (m4T) scoring system, which omits clinical evaluation of other thrombocytopenic etiologies, is different from the 4T scoring system's probability to predict a positive heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) laboratory test in the intensive care unit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a single-centered retrospective analysis of critically ill adults who had an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay antiplatelet factor 4 antibody (ELISA anti-PF4 Ab) ordered. Patients were identified as HIT positive (optical density, ≥0.40) or HIT negative (optical density, <0.40) based on the ELISA anti-PF4 Ab. Both 4T and m4T scores were calculated, and the diagnostic accuracy was compared using paired receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: A total of 1487 adult intensive care unit patients with an ELISA anti-PF4 Ab ordered between January 2007 and December 2009 were eligible for study enrollment. Application of exclusion criteria and random selection yielded a total of 232 patients included for analysis (58 HIT-positive and 174 HIT-negative patients). The area under the curve for the 4T and m4T scores were 0.683 (95% confidence interval, 0.604-0.762) and 0.680 (95% confidence interval, 0.600-0.759), respectively (P=.065). CONCLUSION: This study does not show a difference in the probability of the m4T and 4T scoring systems to predict a positive ELISA anti-PF4 Ab test in the critically ill patient population. Further prospective studies are needed to validate the m4T scoring system.