 |
|
Albumin Use Guidelines and Outcome in a Surgical Intensive Care Unit—Invited Critique
William G. Cheadle, MD
Arch Surg. 2008;143(10):939.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
Charles et al have nicely shown that implementation of clinical guidelines derived from evidence-based medicine can change physician behavior. Indeed, evidence-based medicine is slowly being adopted in areas where such data exist. The crystalloid-colloid argument for resuscitation of trauma and burn patients has long been over, with the exception of instances in which lower volumes would be logistically helpful on the battlefield. However, the use of colloids has its proponents, now mostly anesthesiologists, who use it in the intraoperative and perioperative periods. Hetastarch rather than albumin is used because of the expense of the latter. The idea that colloid administration would result in less tissue edema has not been borne out experimentally because third spacing of colloids eventually occurs. The Cochrane database has repeatedly shown no difference in mortality with albumin use, and more recently the SAFE trial has also shown no benefit from albumin in . . . [Full Text of this Article]
AUTHOR INFORMATION
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
Albumin Use Guidelines and Outcome in a Surgical Intensive Care Unit
Anthony Charles, Maryanne Purtill, Sharon Dickinson, Michael Kraft, Melissa Pleva, Craig Meldrum, and Lena Napolitano
Arch Surg. 2008;143(10):935-939.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
