Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from Critical Care and BioMed Central.

This article is part of the supplement: 32nd International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine

Poster presentation

Fluid creep in burn resuscitation: the tide has not yet turned

E James*, M Hayes, P McCabe, G Williams, M Takata and MP Vizcaychipi

  • * Corresponding author: E James

Author Affiliations

Chelsea and Westminster Hospital and Imperial College, London, UK

For all author emails, please log on.

Critical Care 2012, 16(Suppl 1):P464  doi:10.1186/cc11071


The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://ccforum.com/content/16/S1/P464


Published:20 March 2012

© 2012 James et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine the fluid resuscitation of severely burned patients admitted to our regional centre and to review whether our practice had changed over the last 5 years in light of concerns of fluid creep. Fluid creep is the term coined by Pruitt used to describe fluid resuscitation in excess of that predicted by the Parkland formula and which is associated with abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) [1].

Methods

We completed a retrospective review in accordance with clinical governance guidance of patient notes evaluating all admissions in two groups (Group A: 1 May 2005 to 30 April 2006 and Group B: 1 May 2010 to 30 April 2011). The review examined the first 72 hours of fluid resuscitation in patients with ≥15%TBSA burns who were admitted less than 24 hours post burn injury.

Results

There were 12 patients in each group. Both groups were comparable in both admission (Table 1) and resuscitation data. The total fluid (mean ± SD) given in the first 24 hours post burn-centre admission was 5.36 ± 2.22 ml/kg/%TBSA in Group A and 5.72 ± 3.00 ml/kg/%TBSA in Group B (P = 0.817) with three patients in each group receiving in excess of 250 ml/kg. Almost one-third of the fluid administered was colloid in each group. The hourly urine output (mean ± SD) was 1.34 ± 0.72 ml/kg/hour in Group A and 1.53 ± 1.47 ml/kg/hour in Group B (P = 0.817). Inhalational injury was present in six patients in Group A and three in Group B. The inhalational injury group (mean ± SD) received 6.64 ± 2.51 ml/kg/%TBSA whilst the noninhalational injury group received 4.88 ± 2.50 ml/kg/%TBSA (P = 0.101). There was no reported incidence of ACS.

Conclusion

Despite our awareness of fluid creep, our practice has not changed significantly over the last 5 years. Fluid was administered in excess of that predicted by the Parkland formula despite almost one-third being given as colloid and no cases of ACS being reported. A multicentre randomised control trial is required to examine stricter titration of fluid administration to urine output and the specific role of colloids in early resuscitation.

References

  1. Pruitt BA Jr:

    J Trauma. 2000, 49:567-568. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL