Résumé
Controversy remains over appropriate endpoints of resuscitation during fluid resuscitation in early burns management. We reviewed the evidence as to whether utilizing alternative endpoints to hourly urine output produces improved outcomes. MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and full-text clinicians' health journals at OVID, from 1990 to January 2014, were searched with no language restrictions. The keywords burns AND fluid resuscitation AND monitoring and related synonyms were used. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, organ dysfunction, length of stay (hospital, intensive care), time on mechanical ventilation, and complications such as incidence of pulmonary edema, compartment syndromes, and infection. From 482 screened, eight empirical articles, 11 descriptive studies, and one systematic review met the criteria. Utilization of hemodynamic monitoring compared with hourly urine output as an endpoint to guide resuscitation found an increased survival (risk ratio [RR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.42Y0.85; P < 0.004), with no effect on renal failure (RR, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-1.43; P = 0.38). However, inclusion of the randomized controlled trials only found no survival advantage of hemodynamic monitoring over hourly urine output (RR, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.19; P = 0.19) for mortality. There were conflicting findings between studies for the volume of resuscitation fluid, incidence of sepsis, and length of stay. There is limited evidence of increased benefit with utilization of hemodynamic monitoring, however, all studies lacked assessor blinding. A large multicenter study with a priori-determined subgroup analysis investigating alternative endpoints of resuscitation is warranted.