BackgroundPerioperative 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.MethodsBased 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsWe 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.

The complications associated with acquiring and storing whole blood for transfusions have launched substantial efforts to develop a blood substitute. The history of these efforts involves a complicated mixture of science, ethics, and business. This review focuses on clinical trials of the three hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers (HBOC) that have progressed to Phase II or III clinical trials: He-mAssist (Baxter; Deerfield, IL, US), PolyHeme (Northfield; Evanston, IL, US), and Hemopure (Biopure; Cambridge, MA, US). Published animal studies and clinical trials carried out in a perioperative setting have demonstrated that these products successfully transport and deliver oxygen, but all may induce hypertension and lead to unexpectedly low cardiac outputs. Overall, these studies suggest that HBOCs resulted in only modest blood saving during and after surgery, no improvement in mortality and an increased incidence of adverse reactions. To date, the results from these perioperative studies have not led to regulatory approval. All three companies instead chose to focus their efforts on large trials of trauma patients in the pre-hospital setting.Baxter abandoned the development of HemAssist after a trial in the U.S. was prematurely halted when the first 100 patients showed significantly increased mortality rates as compared to patients treated with blood products. Northfield’s PolyHeme trial demonstrated a non-significant trend towards increased mortality and a very modest reduction in the subsequent need for blood. The testing of Biopure’s Hemopure for trauma patients has been halted for several years because of FDA concerns over trial design and study justification. Ethical concerns have also been raised regarding the design and implementation of all HBOC clinical trials.Thus, the available evidence suggests that HemAssist, Polyheme, and Hemopure are associated with a significant level of cardiovascular dysfunction. The next generation of HBOCs remains under development.

No abstract

No abstract

Patients who have traumatic brain injuries in the presence of hypotension and receive HSD are about twice as likely to survive as those who receive standard of care.

Cardiovascular resuscitation of the severely injured patient in the field remains unsatisfactory because large volumes of intravenous fluid are needed to keep up with ongoing blood losses and because only small volumes of fluid can be given. In the first study reported here, small volumes (less than or equal to 12 mL/kg) of 3% NaCl were given to patients who were having surgery for severe injuries. The 3% NaCl restored blood pressure, pH, and urine output with approximately one half of the cumulative fluid requirement of patients who received isotonic fluids (p less than 0.05). In a second study, 7.5% NaCl/dextran 70, 250 mL, was given in a prospective, randomized, and double-blinded trial to injured patients in the field. Blood pressure in the hypertonic/hyperoncotic group increased 49 mmHg during transport (p less than 0.005); blood pressure in patients given lactated Ringer's solution increased 19 mmHg (NS). Survival favored the hypertonic/hyperoncotic group. The 7.5% NaCl/dextran 70 solution appears particularly promising for treatment of injured patients in the field.

No abstract

Isoflurane, but not mechanical ventilation, decreased urinary excretion and increased interstitial fluid volume. Volume kinetic analysis indicated "third-space" losses due to isoflurane. Perioperative fluid retention may be associated not only with surgical tissue manipulation, but with anesthesia per se.