Greater cardiac response of colloid than saline fluid loading in septic and non-septic critically ill patients with clinical hypovolaemia

92Citations
Citations of this article
105Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background and objective: The haemodynamics of crystalloid and colloid fluid loading may depend on underlying disease, i.e. sepsis versus non-sepsis. Design and setting: A single-centre, single-blinded, randomized clinical trial was carried out on 24 critically ill sepsis and 24 non-sepsis patients with clinical hypovolaemia, assigned to loading with normal saline, gelatin 4%, hydroxyethyl starch 6% or albumin 5% in a 90-min (delta) central venous pressure (CVP)-guided fluid loading protocol. Transpulmonary thermodilution was done each 30 min, yielding, among others, global end-diastolic volume and cardiac indices (GEDVI, CI). Results: Sepsis patients had hyperdynamic hypotension in spite of myocardial depression and dilatation, and greater inotropic/vasopressor requirements than non-sepsis patients. Independent of underlying disease, CVP and GEDVI increased more after colloid than saline loading (P < 0.018), so that CI increased by about 2% after saline and 12% after colloid loading (P = 0.029). The increase in preload-recruitable stroke work was also greater with colloids and did not differ among conditions. Conclusion: Fluid loading with colloids results in a greater linear increase in cardiac filling, output and stroke work than does saline loading, in both septic and non-septic clinical hypovolaemia, in spite of myocardial depression and presumably increased vasopermeability potentially decreasing the effects of colloid fluid loading in the former. © The Author(s) 2010.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Trof, R. J., Sukul, S. P., Twisk, J. W. R., Girbes, A. R. J., & Groeneveld, A. B. J. (2010). Greater cardiac response of colloid than saline fluid loading in septic and non-septic critically ill patients with clinical hypovolaemia. Intensive Care Medicine, 36(4), 697–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-010-1776-x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free