首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Critical Care >Pro/con clinical debate: do colloids have advantages over crystalloids in paediatric sepsis?
【2h】

Pro/con clinical debate: do colloids have advantages over crystalloids in paediatric sepsis?

机译:Pro / con临床辩论:在儿童败血症中胶体比晶体具有优势吗?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Despite decades of resuscitating patients with intravenous fluids in intensive care units, it is somewhat surprising that very little consensus exists regarding the type of fluid physicians should choose. Factors that influence decisions are often local culture or politics, hospital administrators, history (i.e. 'I've always done it this way') and budgets, as opposed to strong evidence. In the present issue of Critical Care we are presented with compelling arguments for and against the administration of colloids (as opposed to crystalloids) in paediatric sepsis. One point that appears to be clear is that the ideal choice of intravenous fluid goes beyond the simple haemodynamic effect. As such, in the future, clinicians will need to consider other factors when making their decision. In addition, large-scale quality randomised studies are desperately needed to guide clinicians.
机译:尽管数十年来在重症监护病房中使用静脉输液使患者复苏,但令人惊奇的是,关于医师应选择的输液类型的共识很少。与强有力的证据相反,影响决策的因素通常是当地的文化或政治,医院行政人员,历史(即“我一直都这样做”)和预算。在本期《重症监护》中,我们提出了令人信服的论点,以支持和反对在儿童败血症中施用胶体(与晶体相反)。显而易见的一点是,静脉输液的理想选择超出了简单的血液动力学作用。因此,将来,临床医生在做出决定时将需要考虑其他因素。此外,迫切需要大规模的质量随机研究来指导临床医生。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号