DOI: https://doi.org/10.22141/2224-0586.7.54.2013.88643

Clinical Experience of Using 6% HES 130/0.4 in Perioperative Bleedings in Children, or Why Do We Need 6% HES 130/0.4 in Pediatrics. Look at the Problem

D.V. Dmitriyev, A.V. Shumilo

Abstract


.

References


Perner A., Haase N., Guttormsen A.B. et al. for the 6S Trial Group and the Scandinavian Critical Care, Trials Group. Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0,4 versus Ringer’s acetate in severe sepsis // N. Engl. J. Med. — 2012. — 367. — 124-134.

Wise J. Europe recommends ban on common plasma substitute // BMJ. — 2013. — 346.

Miller D.R. Update to readers and authors on ethical and scientific misconduct: retraction of the «Boldt articles» // Can. J. Anesth. — 2011. — V. 58. — P. 777-781.

Muller L., Jaber S., Molinari N. et al. Fluid management and risk factors for renal dysfunction in patients with severe sepsis and/or septic shock // Crit. Care. — 2012. — V. 16. — R34.

Reinhart K., Perner A., Sprung C.L. et al. Consensus statement of the ESICM task for on colloid volume therapy in critically ill patients // Intensive Care Med. — 2012. — V. 38. — P. 368-383.

Jacob M., Chappel D., Hoffman-Kiefer K. et al. The intravascular volume effect of Ringer’s lactate is below 20 %: a prospective study in humans // Crit. Care. — 2012. — V. 16. — R86.

Guidet B., Martinet O., Boulain T. еt al. Assessment of hemodynamic efficacy and safety of 6% hydroxyethylstarch 130/0.4 vs. 0.9% NaCl fluid replacement in patients with severe sepsis: The CRYSTMAS study // Crit. Care. — 2012. — Vol. 16(3). — R94.




Copyright (c) 2016 EMERGENCY MEDICINE

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

 

© Publishing House Zaslavsky, 1997-2018

 

   Seo анализ сайта