Patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) often require ICU admission, especially when signs of multiorgan failure are present, a condition that defines AP as severe. This disease is characterized by a massive pancreatic release of pro-inflammatory cytokines that causes a systemic inflammatory response syndrome and a profound intravascular fluid loss. This leads to a mixed hypovolemic and distributive shock and ultimately to multiorgan failure. Aggressive fluid resuscitation is traditionally considered the mainstay treatment of AP. In fact, all available guidelines underline the importance of fluid therapy, particularly in the first 24–48 h after disease onset. However, there is currently no consensus neither about the type, nor about the optimal fluid rate, total volume, or goal of fluid administration. In general, a starting fluid rate of 5–10 ml/kg/h of Ringer’s lactate solution for the first 24 h has been recommended. Fluid administration should be aggressive in the first hours, and continued only for the appropriate time frame, being usually discontinued, or significantly reduced after the first 24–48 h after admission. Close clinical and hemodynamic monitoring along with the definition of clear resuscitation goals are fundamental. Generally accepted targets are urinary output, reversal of tachycardia and hypotension, and improvement of laboratory markers. However, the usefulness of different endpoints to guide fluid therapy is highly debated. The importance of close monitoring of fluid infusion and balance is acknowledged by most available guidelines to avoid the deleterious effect of fluid overload. Fluid therapy should be carefully tailored in patients with severe AP, as for other conditions frequently managed in the ICU requiring large fluid amounts, such as septic shock and burn injury. A combination of both noninvasive clinical and invasive hemodynamic parameters, and laboratory markers should guide clinicians in the early phase of severe AP to meet organ perfusion requirements with the proper administration of fluids while avoiding fluid overload. In this narrative review the most recent evidence about fluid therapy in severe AP is discussed and an operative algorithm for fluid administration based on an individualized approach is proposed.

Crosignani, A., Spina, S., Marrazzo, F., Cimbanassi, S., Malbrain, M., Van Regenemortel, N., et al. (2022). Intravenous fluid therapy in patients with severe acute pancreatitis admitted to the intensive care unit: a narrative review. ANNALS OF INTENSIVE CARE, 12(1) [10.1186/s13613-022-01072-y].

Intravenous fluid therapy in patients with severe acute pancreatitis admitted to the intensive care unit: a narrative review

Crosignani, Andrea
Co-primo
;
Spina, Stefano
Co-primo
;
Fumagalli, Roberto
Penultimo
;
Langer, Thomas
Ultimo
2022

Abstract

Patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) often require ICU admission, especially when signs of multiorgan failure are present, a condition that defines AP as severe. This disease is characterized by a massive pancreatic release of pro-inflammatory cytokines that causes a systemic inflammatory response syndrome and a profound intravascular fluid loss. This leads to a mixed hypovolemic and distributive shock and ultimately to multiorgan failure. Aggressive fluid resuscitation is traditionally considered the mainstay treatment of AP. In fact, all available guidelines underline the importance of fluid therapy, particularly in the first 24–48 h after disease onset. However, there is currently no consensus neither about the type, nor about the optimal fluid rate, total volume, or goal of fluid administration. In general, a starting fluid rate of 5–10 ml/kg/h of Ringer’s lactate solution for the first 24 h has been recommended. Fluid administration should be aggressive in the first hours, and continued only for the appropriate time frame, being usually discontinued, or significantly reduced after the first 24–48 h after admission. Close clinical and hemodynamic monitoring along with the definition of clear resuscitation goals are fundamental. Generally accepted targets are urinary output, reversal of tachycardia and hypotension, and improvement of laboratory markers. However, the usefulness of different endpoints to guide fluid therapy is highly debated. The importance of close monitoring of fluid infusion and balance is acknowledged by most available guidelines to avoid the deleterious effect of fluid overload. Fluid therapy should be carefully tailored in patients with severe AP, as for other conditions frequently managed in the ICU requiring large fluid amounts, such as septic shock and burn injury. A combination of both noninvasive clinical and invasive hemodynamic parameters, and laboratory markers should guide clinicians in the early phase of severe AP to meet organ perfusion requirements with the proper administration of fluids while avoiding fluid overload. In this narrative review the most recent evidence about fluid therapy in severe AP is discussed and an operative algorithm for fluid administration based on an individualized approach is proposed.
Articolo in rivista - Review Essay
Acute pancreatitis; Critical illness; Crystalloid solutions; Fluid therapy; Ringer’s lactate;
English
17-ott-2022
2022
12
1
98
open
Crosignani, A., Spina, S., Marrazzo, F., Cimbanassi, S., Malbrain, M., Van Regenemortel, N., et al. (2022). Intravenous fluid therapy in patients with severe acute pancreatitis admitted to the intensive care unit: a narrative review. ANNALS OF INTENSIVE CARE, 12(1) [10.1186/s13613-022-01072-y].
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Crosignani-2022-Ann Intensive Care-VoR.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: Review
Tipologia di allegato: Publisher’s Version (Version of Record, VoR)
Dimensione 1.47 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.47 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10281/394311
Citazioni
  • Scopus 9
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 6
Social impact