Dengue is a mosquito-borne arboviral infection of increasing public health importance. Globally, children account for a significant proportion of infections. No pathogen-specific treatment currently exists, and the current approach to reducing disease burden is focused on preventative strategies such as vector control, epidemiological interventions, and vaccination in selected populations. Once infected, the mainstay of treatment is supportive, of which appropriate fluid management is a cornerstone. The timely provision of fluid boluses has historically been central to the management of septic shock. However, in patients with dengue shock, particular emphasis is placed on judicious fluid administration. Certain colloids such as hydroxyethyl starches and dextran, despite no longer being used routinely in intensive care units due to concerns of acute kidney injury and impairment of coagulation, are still commonly used in dengue shock syndrome. Current guidelines recommend initial crystalloid therapy, with consideration of colloids for severe or recalcitrant shock in patients with dengue. In this review, we discuss the pathophysiology of septic shock, and consider whether any differences in dengue exist that may warrant a separate approach to fluid therapy. We critically review the available evidence for fluid management in dengue, including the role of colloids. In dengue, there is increasing recognition of the importance of tailoring fluid therapy to phases of disease, with attention to the need for fluid "deresuscitation" once the critical phase of vascular leak passes.
An open comparative randomised study comparing the performance of hydrocolloid dressings (DuoDERM CGF) to saline gauze dressings in the treatment of pressure ulcers was done to evaluate the overall dressing performance, wound healing and cost effectiveness. Thirty-four subjects were enrolled at the University Hospital, Kuala Lumpur over a 643 days period. Inclusion criteria were Stage II or III pressure ulcers, at least 18 years of age and written informed consent. Only one pressure ulcer per subject was enrolled in the study. Patients with infected pressure ulcers, diabetes mellitus, an immuno-compromised status and known sensitivity to the study dressings were excluded. Subjects who met the enrollment criteria were randomised to one of the two dressing regimes. They were expected to participate in the study for a maximum of eight weeks or until the pressure ulcer healed, which ever occurred first. Overall subject age averaged 58 years and the mean duration of pressure ulcer existence was about 1 month. Twenty-one of the thirty-four ulcers enrolled were stage II and thirteen were stage III. The majority of the ulcers (88%) were located in the sacral area and seventeen subjects (50%) were incontinent. In the evaluation of dressing performance in terms of adherence to wound bed, exudate handling ability, overall comfort and pain during dressing removal; all favoured the hydrocolloid dressing by a statistically significant margin (p < 0.001). Subjects assigned the hydrocolloid dressing experienced a mean 34% reduction from their baseline surface area measurement compared to a mean 9% increase by subjects assigned gauze dressings. This was not statistically significant (p = 0.2318). In cost evaluation of the study products, there was no statistical significance in the total cost of wound management per subject. When only labour time and cost was evaluated, there was a statistically significant advantage towards hydrocolloid dressings.
Permanent neurological impairment or death arising from hospital-acquired hyponatremia in both children and adults is well documented. The choice of intravenous fluids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients is a top priority in evidence-based medicine. The question of whether colloids in comparison to crystalloids can improve mortality in such cases remains to be answered. Well powered, randomized clinical trials addressing the comparative efficacy of different types of intravenous fluids is a high priority as is the ethical justification for such trials. The understanding of the pathophysiological process serves important information on clinical practice.