Wed, 4 May 2016
Kath Maitland takes the perspective that we should be cautious with how we give IV fluids. She argues that the underlying physiological evidence supporting the benefits of giving fluids is not there. The findings of the FEAST study are clear. Kath describes how during FEAST, the administration of fluids made the children look better, and improved the recorded physiological parameters. However these surrogate outcomes did not translate to a mortality benefit - fluid boluses were associated with increased mortality.
Nick, a paeds intensivist, retaliates with how it's really about understanding physiology. He defends the position we take at the moment and discusses the issues with the parameters used to assess fluid responsiveness, but urges that we shouldn't change everything we do at the moment until we understand the physiology better. He also has nice description of the glycocalyx - "the pubic hair of the blood vessels, only more useful".