The quest for the holy volume therapy

European Journal of Anaesthesiology

Volumn 33, Issue 7, 2016, Pages 483-487

  De Robertis, Edoardo ^a   Afshari, Arash ^b   Longrois, Dan ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NAPLES FEDERICO II   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^c BICHAT HOSPITAL   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BLOOD VOLUME; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; COLLOID; CRYSTALLOID; DRINKING; FLUID THERAPY; GLYCOCALYX; HEART MUSCLE REPERFUSION; HEART OUTPUT; HEART PERFORMANCE; HEART PRELOAD; HEART STROKE VOLUME; HEMODYNAMIC MONITORING; HUMAN; INTENSIVE CARE; NOTE; PERFUSION; PLASMA OSMOLALITY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RISK FACTOR; THERAPY; VOLUME THERAPY;

EID: 84974588289     PISSN: 02650215     EISSN: 13652346     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000441     Document Type: Note

References (39)

1. Marx G, Schindler AW, Mosch C, et al. Intravascular volume therapy in adults. Guidelines from the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2016; 33:488-521.
2. Cheuvront SN, Kenefick RW, Charkoudian N, et al. Physiologic basis for understanding quantitative dehydration assessment. Am J Clin Nutr 2013; 97:455-462.
3. Lewins R, Lewins R. Injection of saline solutions in extraordinary quantities into the veins in cases of malignant cholera. Lancet 1832; 18:243-244.
4. The cases of cholera successfullytreated. The Lancet 1832; 18:284-286.
5. Kozek-Langenecker SA, Afshari A, Albaladejo P, et al. Management of severe perioperative bleeding: guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2013; 30:270-382.
6. Palumbo D, Servillo G, D'Amato L, et al. The effects of hydroxyethyl starch solution in critically ill patients. Minerva Anestesiol 2006; 72:655-664.
7. Aldecoa C, Kozek-Langenecker S, Rico-Feijoo J. Colloids in surgery: bad drugs, bad protocol, or bad data analysis? Minerva Anestesiol 2014; 80:856-857.
8. Cavallaro F, Sandroni C, Antonelli M. Functional hemodynamic monitoring and dynamic indices of fluid responsiveness. Minerva Anestesiol 2008; 74:123-135.
9. Kubitz JC, Richter HP, Petersen C, et al. Right ventricular stroke volume variation: a tool to assess right ventricular volume responsiveness. Minerva Anestesiol 2014; 80:992-995.
10. Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005; 2:e124.
11. Chappell D, Jacob M. Role of the glycocalyx in fluid management: small things matter. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2014; 28:227-234.
12. Michel CC, Phillips ME. Steady-state fluid filtration at different capillary pressures in perfused frog mesenteric capillaries. J Physiol 1987; 388:421-435.
13. Weinbaum S. 1997 Whitaker Distinguished Lecture: models to solve mysteries in biomechanics at the cellular level; a new view of fiber matrix layers. Ann Biomed Eng 1998; 26:627-643.
14. Mehta D, Ravindran K, Kuebler WM. Novel regulators of endothelial barrier function. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 2014; 307:L924-935.
15. Jacob M, Saller T, Chappell D, et al. Physiological levels of A-, B-and C-type natriuretic peptide shed the endothelial glycocalyx and enhance vascular permeability. Basic Res Cardiol 2013; 108:347.
16. Jouan-Hureaux V, Audonnet-Blaise S, Lacatusu D, et al. Effects of a new perfluorocarbon emulsion on human plasma and whole-blood viscosity in the presence of albumin, hydroxyethyl starch, or modified fluid gelatin: an in vitro rheologic approach. Transfusion 2006; 46:1892-1898.
17. Neff TA, Fischler L, Mark M, et al. The influence of two different hydroxyethyl starch solutions (6% HES 130/0.4 and 200/0.5) on blood viscosity. Anesth Analg 2005; 100:1773-1780.
18. Guerci P, Tran N, Menu P, et al. Impact of fluid resuscitation with hypertonic-hydroxyethyl starch versus lactated ringer on hemorheology and microcirculation in hemorrhagic shock. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 2014; 56:301-317.
19. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343:d5928.
20. Hró bjartsson A, Boutron I, Turner L, et al. Assessing risk of bias in randomised clinical trials included in Cochrane Reviews: the why is easy, the how is a challenge. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 4:ED000058.
21. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999; 354:1896-1900.
22. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010; 8:336-341.
23. Panic N, Leoncini E, de Belvis G, et al. Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS ONE 2013; 8:e83138.
24. Tao K-m, Li X-q, Zhou Q-h, et al. From QUOROM to PRISMA: a survey of high-impact medical journals' instructions to authors and a review of systematic reviews in anesthesia literature. PLoS ONE 2011; 6:e27611.
25. Haug CJ. Peer-Review Fraud: hacking the scientific publication process. N Engl J Med 2015; 373:2393-2395.
26. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare. CMAJ 2010; 182:E839-E842.
27. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336:924-926.
28. Swingler GH, Volmink J, Ioannidis JPA. Number of published systematic reviews and global burden of disease: database analysis. BMJ 2003; 327:1083-1084.
29. Tunis AS, McInnes MDF, Hanna R, et al. Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement? Radiology 2013; 269:413-426.
30. Hedges LV, Pigott TD. The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods 2001; 6:203-217.
31. Thorlund K, Devereaux PJ, Wetterslev J, et al. Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses? Int J Epidemiol 2009; 38:276-286.
32. Imberger G, Vejlby AD, Hansen SB, et al. Statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews of anaesthesia interventions: a quantification and comparison between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. PLoS ONE 2011; 6:e28422.
33. Higgins JPT, Whitehead A, Simmonds M. Sequential methods for random-effects meta-analysis. Stat Med 2011; 30:903-921.
34. Brok J, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Wetterslev J. Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61:763-769.
35. Borm GF, Donders AR. Updating meta-analyses leads to larger type Ierrors than publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62:825-830.
36. Thorlund K, Imberger G, Walsh M, et al. The number of patients and events required to limit the risk of overestimation of intervention effects in meta-analysis: a simulation study. PLoS ONE 2011; 6:e25491.
37. Turner RM, Bird SM, Higgins JPT. The impact of study size on meta-analyses: examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews. PLoS ONE 2013; 8:e59202.
38. Afshari A, Wetterslev J. When may systematic reviews and meta-analyses be considered reliable? Eur J Anaesthesiol 2015; 32:85-87.
39. Pereira TV, Ioannidis JPA. Statistically significant meta-analyses of clinical trials have modest credibility and inflated effects. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64:1060-1069.