Controversies in Fluid Resuscitation

Controversies in Fluid Resuscitation: A Review 

Dr Neeraj Manikath, claude.ai

Introduction

Fluid resuscitation remains one of the cornerstones of managing critically ill patients, particularly those with shock, sepsis, or major trauma. Despite its fundamental role in critical care, controversy persists regarding optimal fluid selection, timing, and volume. This review addresses two major areas of ongoing debate: the choice between crystalloids, balanced solutions, and albumin in specific patient populations; and the concept of fluid stewardship—recognizing when conservative fluid management may yield better outcomes.

Crystalloids vs. Balanced Solutions vs. Albumin: Evidence in Specific Populations

Sepsis and Septic Shock

The question of optimal fluid choice in sepsis has evolved substantially over the past decade. The traditional use of normal saline (0.9% NaCl) has been increasingly challenged by evidence suggesting potential harm from hyperchloremic acidosis and acute kidney injury (AKI).

The SMART trial (2018) compared balanced crystalloids (Lactated Ringer's or Plasma-Lyte A) to saline in 15,802 critically ill patients, finding a lower rate of the composite outcome of death, new renal replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction in the balanced crystalloid group (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82-0.99; P=0.04). The SALT-ED trial similarly showed fewer adverse kidney events with balanced crystalloids in non-critically ill patients.

However, the PLUS trial (2022) comparing balanced crystalloids with saline in 5,037 ICU patients found no significant difference in 90-day mortality (21.8% vs. 22.0%, p=0.90), suggesting that the clinical impact of fluid choice may be modest in certain populations.

Regarding albumin, the ALBIOS trial (2014) examined 1,818 patients with severe sepsis, comparing 20% albumin plus crystalloid to crystalloid alone. While no overall mortality difference was seen, a subgroup analysis suggested potential benefit in patients with septic shock (relative risk of death, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.99).

Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

Fluid management in TBI has unique considerations given concerns about cerebral edema and intracranial pressure. The SAFE-TBI study (2007) raised concerns about 4% albumin in TBI patients, showing increased mortality compared with saline (RR 1.63; 95% CI 1.17-2.26; p=0.003). This may relate to albumin's movement across the disrupted blood-brain barrier, potentially exacerbating cerebral edema.

The Hypotonic Solutions and Traumatic Brain Injury (HOT-TBI) trial demonstrated that hypotonic crystalloids were associated with worsened outcomes in TBI, reinforcing the preference for isotonic solutions in this population.

Hypoalbuminemia in Critical Illness

Critical illness often features hypoalbuminemia, raising the question of albumin supplementation. The meta-analysis by Xu et al. (2019) including 20 trials with 13,047 patients found that albumin administration was associated with reduced mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80-0.99) but not in general critically ill populations.

The ALBIOS trial specifically demonstrated that albumin administration targeted to maintain serum albumin ≥30 g/L did not improve overall outcomes in severe sepsis or septic shock, but the aforementioned subgroup benefit in septic shock patients has influenced some practice guidelines.

Burn Patients

The Parkland formula has historically guided fluid resuscitation in severe burns, often resulting in large crystalloid volumes. The ALBUR trial (2016) found that adding albumin after the first 12 hours reduced total fluid requirements and lowered the incidence of abdominal compartment syndrome compared with crystalloids alone (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.72-0.98).

Liver Disease and Hepatorenal Syndrome

Patients with advanced liver disease present unique challenges due to altered hemodynamics and risk of hepatorenal syndrome. The ANSWER trial (2018) demonstrated that long-term albumin administration in cirrhosis with ascites reduced infection rates, renal dysfunction, and mortality (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.40-0.95).

For hepatorenal syndrome specifically, the combination of albumin with vasoconstrictors such as terlipressin has shown superior efficacy compared to vasoconstrictors alone in the CONFIRM trial (2021), with improved renal function recovery (HR 1.8; 95% CI 1.3-2.5).

Fluid Stewardship: When Less is More

The Evolution of Fluid Management Paradigms

Historical approaches to fluid resuscitation often emphasized aggressive volume expansion ("early goal-directed therapy"), exemplified by the original Rivers trial (2001). However, subsequent large trials (ProCESS, ARISE, ProMISe) failed to demonstrate benefits of this approach, leading to a paradigm shift.

The concept of fluid stewardship has emerged, emphasizing four phases of fluid therapy:

1. Rescue/Resuscitation (hours 0-1)
2. Optimization (hours 1-24)
3. Stabilization (days 2-4)
4. De-escalation (day 5 onward)

Evidence for Conservative Fluid Strategies

The FACTT trial (2006) compared liberal versus conservative fluid management in 1,000 patients with acute lung injury, finding that the conservative strategy improved lung function and shortened mechanical ventilation duration without increasing non-pulmonary organ failures.

The CLASSIC trial (2022) evaluated restrictive versus standard fluid therapy after initial resuscitation in 1,554 ICU patients with septic shock. While 90-day mortality did not differ significantly (restrictive: 42.3% vs. standard: 42.1%), the restrictive approach resulted in less cumulative fluid at day 5 and fewer adverse events.

For surgical patients, the RELIEF trial (2018) compared restrictive versus liberal fluid strategies in 3,000 major abdominal surgery patients. Contrary to expectations, restrictive fluid management was associated with increased acute kidney injury and surgical site infection, highlighting the context-specific nature of optimal fluid strategies.

Dynamic Assessment of Fluid Responsiveness

Contemporary approaches increasingly emphasize dynamic assessments of fluid responsiveness rather than static targets. Methods include:

1. Passive leg raising with cardiac output monitoring
2. Respiratory variation in stroke volume or pulse pressure
3. End-expiratory occlusion test
4. Mini-fluid challenges

The ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial (2019) compared capillary refill time versus serum lactate clearance as resuscitation targets in septic shock patients, finding a trend toward lower mortality with capillary refill-guided resuscitation (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.55-1.02; p=0.06).

De-resuscitation Strategies

Active de-resuscitation, particularly in patients with positive fluid balance, has gained attention. The ROSE protocol combines Restricted fluid, Oxygenation targets, Spontaneous breathing trials, and Early mobilization to promote fluid removal during the recovery phase.

The RADAR study (2021) showed that protocol-based de-resuscitation in mechanically ventilated patients with fluid overload resulted in greater negative fluid balance and fewer ventilator days, though without mortality benefit.

Practical Recommendations

Patient-Specific Approach to Fluid Selection

Based on current evidence, we recommend:

1. General critical illness: Balanced crystalloids as first-line therapy for most patients
2. Septic shock: Consider 20% albumin in addition to crystalloids if persistent hypotension despite initial resuscitation
3. TBI patients: Avoid albumin; use isotonic crystalloids
4. Hypoalbuminemia: Consider albumin supplementation only in septic shock with albumin <30 g/L
5. Liver disease: Early albumin use may be beneficial, especially with hepatorenal syndrome
6. Burn patients: Consider albumin supplementation after first 12-24 hours

Implementing Fluid Stewardship

1. Initial resuscitation (0-6 hours): Goal-directed fluid therapy guided by dynamic parameters
2. Optimization (6-24 hours): Careful fluid challenges only in responders
3. Stabilization (24-72 hours): Neutral fluid balance goal
4. De-escalation (>72 hours): Active fluid removal in clinically stable patients

Monitoring Strategies

1. Combine clinical assessment with objective measures of fluid responsiveness
2. Focus on tissue perfusion endpoints (e.g., capillary refill time, lactate clearance)
3. Daily assessment of fluid balance and organ function
4. Consider point-of-care ultrasound for volume assessment

Conclusion

Fluid management in critically ill patients continues to evolve from a "one-size-fits-all" approach to individualized strategies based on patient characteristics, phase of illness, and physiologic response. The evidence increasingly supports balanced crystalloids as first-line therapy for most patients, with specific indications for albumin in select populations.

The concept of fluid stewardship—with its emphasis on appropriate initial resuscitation followed by judicious ongoing management and active de-resuscitation—represents an important paradigm shift in critical care. Future research should focus on personalized fluid strategies guided by biomarkers, genetic factors, and advanced hemodynamic monitoring to further refine our approach to this fundamental aspect of critical care.

References

1. Semler MW, Self WH, Wanderer JP, et al. Balanced Crystalloids versus Saline in Critically Ill Adults. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(9):829-839.

2. Finfer S, Bellomo R, Boyce N, et al. A comparison of albumin and saline for fluid resuscitation in the intensive care unit. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(22):2247-2256.

3. Caironi P, Tognoni G, Masson S, et al. Albumin replacement in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(15):1412-1421.

4. Myburgh J, Cooper DJ, Finfer S, et al. Saline or albumin for fluid resuscitation in patients with traumatic brain injury. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(9):874-884.

5. Zampieri FG, Machado FR, Biondi RS, et al. Effect of Intravenous Fluid Treatment With a Balanced Solution vs 0.9% Saline Solution on Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: The BaSICS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2021;326(9):818-829.

6. Finfer S, Micallef S, Hammond N, et al. Balanced Multielectrolyte Solution versus Saline in Critically Ill Adults. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(9):815-826.

7. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Clinical Trials Network. Comparison of two fluid-management strategies in acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(24):2564-2575.

8. Meyhoff TS, Hjortrup PB, Møller MH, et al. Conservative vs Liberal Fluid Therapy in Septic Shock (CLASSIC) Trial: Protocol and statistical analysis plan. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2019;63(9):1262-1271.

9. Myles PS, Bellomo R, Corcoran T, et al. Restrictive versus Liberal Fluid Therapy for Major Abdominal Surgery. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(24):2263-2274.

10. Hernández G, Ospina-Tascón GA, Damiani LP, et al. Effect of a Resuscitation Strategy Targeting Peripheral Perfusion Status vs Serum Lactate Levels on 28-Day Mortality Among Patients With Septic Shock: The ANDROMEDA-SHOCK Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019;321(7):654-664.

11. Caraceni P, Riggio O, Angeli P, et al. Long-term albumin administration in decompensated cirrhosis (ANSWER): an open-label randomised trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10138):2417-2429.

12. Wong F, Pappas SC, Curry MP, et al. Terlipressin plus Albumin for the Treatment of Type 1 Hepatorenal Syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(9):818-828.

13. Xu JY, Chen QH, Xie JF, et al. Comparison of the effects of albumin and crystalloid on mortality in adult patients with severe sepsis and septic shock: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Crit Care. 2014;18(6):702.

14. Hjortrup PB, Haase N, Bundgaard H, et al. Restricting volumes of resuscitation fluid in adults with septic shock after initial management: the CLASSIC randomised, parallel-group, multicentre feasibility trial. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(11):1695-1705.

15. Self WH, Semler MW, Wanderer JP, et al. Balanced Crystalloids versus Saline in Noncritically Ill Adults. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(9):819-828.

16. Hoste EA, Maitland K, Brudney CS, et al. Four phases of intravenous fluid therapy: a conceptual model. Br J Anaesth. 2014;113(5):740-747.

17. Douglas IS, Alapat PM, Corl KA, et al. Fluid Response Evaluation in Sepsis Hypotension and Shock: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Chest. 2020;158(4):1431-1445.

18. Silversides JA, Major E, Ferguson AJ, et al. Conservative fluid management or deresuscitation for patients with sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome following the resuscitation phase of critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(2):155-170.

19. Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, et al. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(19):1368-1377.

20. The ProCESS Investigators. A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(18):1683-1693.