Fluids in ARDS: more pros than cons

Renata de S. Mendes, Paolo Pelosi, Marcus J. Schultz, Patricia R.M. Rocco, Pedro L. Silva

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), increased pulmonary vascular permeability makes the lung vulnerable to edema. The use of conservative as compared to liberal fluid strategies may increase the number of ventilator-free days and survival, as well as reduce organ dysfunction. Monitoring the effects of fluid administration is of the utmost importance; dynamic indexes, such as stroke volume and pulse pressure variations, outperform static ones, such as the central venous pressure. The passive leg raise and end-expiratory occlusion tests are recommended for guiding fluid management decisions. The type of intravenous fluids should also be taken into consideration: crystalloids, colloids, and human albumin have all been used for fluid resuscitation. Recent studies have also shown differences in outcome between balanced and non-balanced intravenous solutions. In preclinical studies, infusion of albumin promotes maintenance of the glycocalyx layer, reduces inflammation, and improves alveolar-capillary membrane permeability. Fluids in ARDS must be administered cautiously, considering hemodynamic and perfusion status, oncotic and hydrostatic pressures, ARDS severity, fluid type, volume and infusion rate, and cardiac and renal function. Of note, no guideline to date has recommended a specific fluid composition for use in ARDS; most physicians currently follow recommendations for sepsis.

Original languageEnglish
Article number32
Pages (from-to)32
JournalIntensive Care Medicine Experimental
Volume8
Issue numberSuppl 1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2020

Keywords

  • Acute respiratory distress syndrome
  • Balanced solution
  • Colloids
  • Hemodynamic
  • Human albumin
  • Non-balanced solutions

Cite this