Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Comparing different studies is difficult
Editorial by Offringa and Paper p 235
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITOR
The debate over giving crystalloids or colloids has been raging
since the 19th century, when Cohnheim and Lichtheim found gastric
mucosal oedema in patients who had been resuscitated with saline and
Starling suggested that albumin could prevent oedema.
1 2
The meta-analysis by Schierhout and Roberts, which does not support the
continued use of colloids for volume replacement in critically ill
patients, makes a useful contribution to this debate but does not
settle it.3
A recent review by Hankeln and Beez comes to the opposite
conclusion
that colloids are more effective than crystalloids for
optimising physiological variables related to flow in critically ill
patients and maintaining the delivery of oxygen to the
tissues2; they say that this is related to the persistence
of colloids in the circulating plasma volume, as opposed to their
distribution throughout the total body water.4 Although
colloids are more expensive than crystalloids, their effect on
Read all Rapid Responses