Introduction
A great number of disorders and mortality cases are due to sepsis, an extreme clinical issue following complications of an infection, caused by inflammatory processes. “Bad bloodstream distribution is said to be the essential consequence of this ailment, which causes an incendiary reaction of the whole body. Its main characteristics are expanded penetrability of capillaries, vasodilatation, and cell relocation, which cause an inflammatory response in the tissues. Neutrophil, when being activated prompts the arrival of vast regulatory mediators and proteases, which thus prompt the expanded endothelial penetrability” (1).
There is a constant accentuation on early objective targeted therapeutic help when treating patients with septic shock, which arises from advanced sepsis exploration. Because of the pathophysiological progressions connected with sepsis patients can be delivered in hospitals in a poor condition, having hypotension, tachycardia, and hyper/hypothermia (8). In such cases, emergency division staff must act quickly and thoroughly.
The septic patients’ possibility of survival grows proportionally to the speed of recognition joined with the fast and forceful treatment of vivacious fluid loading and anti-toxin treatment (7). However, much open deliberation encompasses the kind of liquid used to revive these patients. Thus, this literature review aims to investigate, which type of liquid, crystalloid or colloid enhances hemodynamic stability when treating adult patients in septic shock.
Discussion
“There are cases of self-limited inflammatory reaction, with a disorder being constrained, but there also exist those that can advance to serious sepsis and septic shock. These incidents are accompanied by anomalies, such as peripheral vasodilatation or expanded digestion, which may ruin an oxygen delivery balance and cause overall tissue hypoxia” (9). Crystalloid solutions are proved to create plasma expansion, which in its turn provides more oxygen during septic shock.
As a result, enhanced hemodynamic stability can be observed (1,2,5). Yet, 75% of crystalloid solutions were dispersed into extravascular space, resulting in hypernatremia and edema. This number is quite big in contrast to a small positive change in hemodynamic stability, which cannot but creates doubts concerning intravascular maintenance of these liquids (1,2,4). Colloid solutions, on the other hand, resulted in the same plasma extension, though triggered physiological progressions more actively and required less volume to imbue (2,4).
But there are also a few disadvantages of colloid solutions, such as sepsis-instigated rheology intensifying, blood thickness, and higher micro-vascular stream (3). Moreover, colloid solutions alter the risk of anaphylaxis, which does not vote in their favor and proves them to have a rather negative outcome (1,2,3,4,6).
Despite the continuing argument concerning performances of colloid and crystalloid solutions, all scientific evidence agrees upon the fact that hemodynamic stability of patients with septic shock was significantly bettered by the deployment of large amounts (8-10L) of fluid (1-11). Nevertheless, the role of crystalloid and colloid solutions in advancing hemodynamic stability remains disputed and raises new questions and answers.
In 2008 international guidelines and advice lists were implemented by Dellinger in cooperation with other scientists. It contained instructions on how to treat patients during severe sepsis and septic shock, based on the recommendation and evaluation grade system, used by Dellinger. According to this system, the strength of recommendations gradates from A being high to D being low. 1B evidence is said to be a necessary demand to invigorate sepsis and septic shock patients, and both synthetic colloid and crystalloid solutions should be used, for the advantage of one mean over another has not been proved (11).
Conclusion
Crystalloid and Colloid solutions are both stated to have merits and demerits in treating sepsis and septic shock patients: both of them enhance oxygen delivery, lessen cellular and tissue levels and decrease hypoxia. The literature provides the only measure necessary for the successful implementation of both methods, which is a large volume replacement. Additional search and scientific surveillance of post-resuscitation recovery may give extra information to this debate, prove either crystalloid or colloid solution to be more effective, and provide corresponding data to designate their practice-changing regulation.
Crystalloid and colloid solutions both posses upsides and downsides in the treatment of septic patients. Nevertheless, both fluids are possible to use under the condition that the volume of fluid, used to achieve hemodynamic stability, is high. The question about crystalloid vs. colloid efficacy is still open and new data are needed to obtain new information on patients’ post-resuscitation conditions.
Literature Search
Investigation of severe sepsis and its treatment via crystalloid and colloid solutions is a clinical question, requiring new research. Such databases as Ovid SP, Cinahl, and Pubmed were investigated and the following keywords were used: crystalloid, colloid, fluid therapy, resuscitation, sepsis, and adult. There were about 70 articles found on the required topic, and 69 of them were rejected. Clinical trials and tests, focused on crystalloid and colloid solutions with sepsis or septic shock in the title, were the main characteristics of the selected literature.
After the collection and selection of appropriate resources, the choice was brought to 11 works. The resulting small number of articles is due to their particular focus on crystalloid vs. colloid, while other papers included discussion of other fluid therapies, for example, sodium bicarbonate.
Reference List
- Singh A, Carlin BW, Shade D, Kaplan PD. The use of hypertonic saline for fluid resuscitation in Sepsis A Review. Crit Care Nurs Q.2009 32;(1): 10-13.
- Cho-min N, Daw-Khin W. Do colloids in comparison to crystalloids for fluid resuscitation improve mortality Mini-Review. Transactions of the royal society of tropical medicine and hygiene. 2010 104; 311-312.
- Castro VJ, Astiz ME, Rackow EC. Effect of crystalloid and colloid solutions on blood rheology in sepsis. SHOCK. 1997; (2) : 104-107.
- Shoemaker WE, Schluchter M, Hopkins BS, Appel S, Schwartz MS, Chang P. Fluid therapy in the emergency resuscitation of septic patients: clinical evaluation of colloid and crystalloid regimes. Critical Care Medicine. 1981; 5: 367-368.
- Fang ZX, Li YF, Zhou XQ, Zhang SJ, Xia MH, Xing PG, Shu WP, Shen L, Yin GQ. Effects of resuscitation with crystalloid fluids on cardiac function in patients with severe sepsis. Bio med central. 2008; 50: 1-12.
- Schick MA, Isbary TJ, Schlegel N, Brugger J, Waschke J, Muellenbach R, Roewer N, Wunder C. Intensive care med. 2009. 541-548.
- Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, Light B, Parillio J, Sharma S, Suppes R, Feinstein D, Zanotti S, Taiberg L, Gurka D, Kumar A, Cheng M. Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2006 34; 6: 1589-1596.
- Suffrendini AF, Munford RS. Novel therapies for septic shock over the past 4 decades. JAMA 2011 306; 2: 194-199.
- Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havastad S, Ressler J, Muzzin A, Khoblich B, Patterson E, Tomlanovich M. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2001 345; 19: 1368-1377.
- Bellinger RP, Levy M, Carlet J, Bion J, Parker M, Jaeschke R et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for the management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit care Med 2008 36; 1: 296-327.
- Cracknell R. Sepsis Kills recognize, resuscitate, refer [power point presentation] NSW Agency for clinical innovation, Clinical excellence commission: Network for continuing medical education; 2011.