What is the evidence base for fluid resuscitation in acute medicine?

Adam Seccombe, Elizabeth Sapey
Clinical Medicine: Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 2018, 18 (3): 225-230
Intravenous fluids are commonly prescribed but uncertainty remains about how to assess when fluids are required and how much to give, particularly in our multimorbid, polymedicated and ageing population. Furthermore, studies have noted that fluid resuscitation can be harmful even if clinical evidence of hypervolaemia is not present. Two recent guidelines have acknowledged a limited evidence base to guide fluid assessment. A recommended means to assess hypovolaemia includes assessment of fluid responsiveness. Fluid responsiveness is a rise in stroke volume following an increase in preload, achieved using a fluid challenge or a passive leg raise. However, the means of defining fluid responsiveness and its ability to identify patients who would benefit from fluid resuscitation is currently unclear. This review discusses the current guidelines about, and the evidence base for the provision of, intravenous fluids in the acutely unwell medical patient. It highlights how little evidence is available to guide medical practice.


You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Trending Papers

Available on the App Store

Available on the Play Store
Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"