13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      A multidisciplinary consensus on dehydration: definitions, diagnostic methods and clinical implications

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: Dehydration appears prevalent, costly and associated with adverse outcomes. We sought to generate consensus on such key issues and elucidate need for further scientific enquiry. Materials and methods: A modified Delphi process combined expert opinion and evidence appraisal. Twelve relevant experts addressed dehydration’s definition, objective markers and impact on physiology and outcome. Results: Fifteen consensus statements and seven research recommendations were generated. Key findings, evidenced in detail, were that there is no universally accepted definition for dehydration; hydration assessment is complex and requires combining physiological and laboratory variables; “dehydration” and “hypovolaemia” are incorrectly used interchangeably; abnormal hydration status includes relative and/or absolute abnormalities in body water and serum/plasma osmolality (pOsm); raised pOsm usually indicates dehydration; direct measurement of pOsm is the gold standard for determining dehydration; pOsm >300 and ≤280 mOsm/kg classifies a person as hyper or hypo-osmolar; outside extremes, signs of adult dehydration are subtle and unreliable; dehydration is common in hospitals and care homes and associated with poorer outcomes. Discussion: Dehydration poses risk to public health. Dehydration is under-recognized and poorly managed in hospital and community-based care. Further research is required to improve assessment and management of dehydration and the authors have made recommendations to focus academic endeavours. Dehydration assessment is a major clinical challenge due to a complex, varying pathophysiology, non-specific clinical presentations and the lack of international consensus on definition and diagnosis. Plasma osmolality represents a valuable, objective surrogate marker of hypertonic dehydration which is underutilized in clinical practice. Dehydration is prevalent within the healthcare setting and in the community, and appears associated with increased morbidity and mortality.

          Related collections

          Most cited references131

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Exercise and fluid replacement.

          This Position Stand provides guidance on fluid replacement to sustain appropriate hydration of individuals performing physical activity. The goal of prehydrating is to start the activity euhydrated and with normal plasma electrolyte levels. Prehydrating with beverages, in addition to normal meals and fluid intake, should be initiated when needed at least several hours before the activity to enable fluid absorption and allow urine output to return to normal levels. The goal of drinking during exercise is to prevent excessive (>2% body weight loss from water deficit) dehydration and excessive changes in electrolyte balance to avert compromised performance. Because there is considerable variability in sweating rates and sweat electrolyte content between individuals, customized fluid replacement programs are recommended. Individual sweat rates can be estimated by measuring body weight before and after exercise. During exercise, consuming beverages containing electrolytes and carbohydrates can provide benefits over water alone under certain circumstances. After exercise, the goal is to replace any fluid electrolyte deficit. The speed with which rehydration is needed and the magnitude of fluid electrolyte deficits will determine if an aggressive replacement program is merited.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Restrictive versus Liberal Fluid Therapy for Major Abdominal Surgery

            Guidelines to promote the early recovery of patients undergoing major surgery recommend a restrictive intravenous-fluid strategy for abdominal surgery. However, the supporting evidence is limited, and there is concern about impaired organ perfusion.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effect of salt and water balance on recovery of gastrointestinal function after elective colonic resection: a randomised controlled trial.

              Low concentrations of albumin in serum and long gastric emptying times have been returned to normal in dogs by salt and water restriction, or a high protein intake. We aimed to determine the effect of salt and water balance on recovery of gastrointestinal function after elective colonic resection in human beings. We randomly allocated ten patients to receive postoperative intravenous fluids in accordance present hospital practice (> or = 3 L water and 154 mmol sodium per day) and ten to receive a restricted intake (< or = 2 L water and 77 mmol sodium per day). All patients had no disease other than colonic cancer. The primary endpoint was solid and liquid-phase gastric emptying time, measured by dual isotope radionuclide scintigraphy on the fourth postoperative day. Secondary endpoints included time to first bowel movement and length of postoperative hospital stay. Analysis was by intention to treat. Median solid and liquid phase gastric emptying times (T(50)) on the fourth postoperative day were significantly longer in the standard group than in the restricted group (175 vs 72.5 min, difference 56 [95% CI 12-132], p=0.028; and 110 vs 73.5 min, 52 [9-95], p=0.017, respectively). Median passage of flatus was 1 day later (4 vs 3 days, 2 [1-2], p=0.001); median passage of stool 2.5 days later (6.5 vs 4 days, 3 [2-4], p=0.001); and median postoperative hospital stay 3 days longer (9 vs 6 days, 3 [1-8], p=0.001) in the standard group than in the restricted group. One patient in the restricted group developed hypokalaemia, whereas seven patients in the standard group had side-effects or complications (p=0.01). Positive salt and water balance sufficient to cause a 3 kg weight gain after surgery delays return of gastrointestinal function and prolongs hospital stay in patients undergoing elective colonic resection.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Annals of Medicine
                Annals of Medicine
                Informa UK Limited
                0785-3890
                1365-2060
                May 19 2019
                June 17 2019
                May 19 2019
                : 51
                : 3-4
                : 232-251
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Institute of Sport Exercise & Health, University College London, London, UK;
                [2 ] Department of Sport & Exercise Science, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK;
                [3 ] Intensive Care Unit, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK;
                [4 ] Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK;
                [5 ] Department of Anaesthesia, University Hospitals Plymouth, Plymouth, UK;
                [6 ] Peninsula School of Medicine, Plymouth, UK;
                [7 ] Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK;
                [8 ] Intensive Care Unit, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK;
                [9 ] Research Institute for Sport & Exercise Science, Liverpool John Moores University, UK;
                [10 ] Formerly Consultant University Hospitals Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK;
                [11 ] Centre for Human Health and Performance, University College London, London, UK
                Article
                10.1080/07853890.2019.1628352
                7877883
                31204514
                8b617a48-607f-4cf7-9464-34ae27f621ee
                © 2019
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article