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

Crit Care. 2002 Aug;6(4):286-8. doi: 10.1186/cc1510. Epub 2002 May 27.

Abstract

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.

MeSH terms

  • Attitude of Health Personnel
  • Child, Preschool
  • Colloids / therapeutic use*
  • Critical Care
  • Crystalloid Solutions
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Isotonic Solutions
  • Meningococcal Infections / drug therapy*
  • Plasma Substitutes / therapeutic use*
  • Sepsis / drug therapy*

Substances

  • Colloids
  • Crystalloid Solutions
  • Isotonic Solutions
  • Plasma Substitutes