Crystalloid versus colloid and albumin choice in burn resuscitation
Summary
- What it is: The choice between crystalloid, colloid, and albumin for burn resuscitation; lactated Ringer's is standard and colloid lowers fluid volume [1][6][12].
- When indicated: Add colloid, usually albumin, when crystalloid rates run above predicted targets or in larger burns to lower volume and improve urine output [5][13][11].
- How delivered: Crystalloid is titrated to urine output by Parkland or modified Brooke; albumin is added as planned adjunct or rescue [3][6][11].
- Watch for: Fluid creep and over-resuscitation drive abdominal compartment syndrome and pulmonary edema; large crystalloid volumes raise complication and mortality risk [4][14][25].
- Recognize: Lactated Ringer's is the dominant first-line fluid and the Parkland formula the dominant method, but actual practice routinely exceeds formula predictions [29][30]. → Management
- Recognize: Crystalloid-only resuscitation needs more volume than colloid-inclusive regimens; the landmark RCT showed 3.81 versus 2.98 mL/kg/%TBSA [2]. → Management
- Immediate action: Titrate crystalloid to urine output, and when ratios climb above target add colloid as rescue, which precipitously restores normal resuscitation ratios [11][6]. → Colloid timing and rescue
- Immediate action: The 2024 ABA guideline supports considering albumin in larger burns and starting at 2 mL/kg/%TBSA to reduce volumes [5]. → Management
- Watch for: Escalating crystalloid volume produces fluid creep, abdominal compartment syndrome, and pulmonary edema, and exceeding the Ivy index independently predicts death [4][14][25]. → Complications
- Unresolved: A 1998 meta-analysis signaled an albumin mortality harm, but modern burn-specific meta-analyses find neutral or favorable effects [15][20][21]. → Controversies and Evidence Gaps
- Special populations: Inhalation injury and larger or deeper burns drive higher fluid demand and more frequent colloid use; pediatric trials support early albumin [30][13][12]. → Special Considerations
Overview
The choice of resuscitation fluid in major burns is less a binary than a sequence of decisions: which crystalloid as the baseline, whether to add colloid, which colloid, and when [11][26]. Lactated Ringer's remains the resuscitation standard and the Parkland formula the most commonly used method, with surveys confirming crystalloid as the dominant first-line fluid across burn units [29][30][37]. The unresolved question is not whether crystalloid works but how much of it is too much, because the volumes actually delivered routinely exceed formula predictions and carry their own morbidity [33][14][4].
Colloids enter the picture as volume-sparing agents. Albumin is the most studied and most used colloid, and a comparative literature spanning randomized trials, meta-analyses, and matched cohorts shows that colloid-inclusive resuscitation lowers total fluid requirements [2][7][12]. That benefit is set against a decades-old mortality controversy and against the physiologic concern that colloid given during peak capillary leak may worsen lung water [15][3][9]. This page synthesizes the comparative evidence: crystalloid as the baseline, the colloid-timing debate, albumin for fluid creep and rescue, hypertonic saline and plasma substitutes, the over-resuscitation complications that motivate colloid use, and where current guidance lands. Single-agent detail lives in the linked pages on albumin, fresh frozen plasma, the parent fluid-resuscitation overview, and the Parkland formula.
Pathophysiology
The rationale for the entire crystalloid-versus-colloid debate sits in the microcirculation. Hypovolemia after major thermal injury results from increased capillary permeability with subsequent loss of fluid into the interstitium [16]. The injury degrades the endothelial glycocalyx, and glycocalyx shedding in burn patients parallels the endotheliopathy seen in other shock states [17]. Reduced plasma colloid osmotic pressure compounds the problem, because lowering plasma proteins redistributes water from the plasma to the interstitial space and further increases peripheral edema [18].
This is where crystalloid and colloid diverge mechanistically. In animal models, supporting serum colloid osmotic pressure with colloid maintains the intravascular driving force: crystalloid resuscitation dropped colloid osmotic pressure from 27.3 to 14.2 mm Hg and collapsed the intravascular driving force, while both were preserved in colloid-treated animals [19]. Colloids, including albumin, have no ability to arrest burn wound edema, but they do reduce edema in nonburn soft tissue and preserve intravascular volume while lowering fluid requirements without an apparent increase in extravascular lung water [3]. The countervailing concern is timing. Early colloid resuscitation was historically stopped because of a perceived deteriorating effect on thermal-injury-induced vascular hyperpermeability, and in one animal model albumin given without iNOS inhibition enhanced lung damage and aggravated gut barrier injury [34][14]. Whether early colloid leaks into the interstitium and does harm, or supports oncotic pressure and does good, is the physiologic fault line under the clinical controversy.
Management
Crystalloid baseline
Lactated Ringer's is the resuscitation standard [29], and the modified Brooke and Parkland formulas anchor initial dosing [37]. In a North American practice survey, lactated Ringer's was the preferred solution in 91.9% of centers and the Parkland formula the preferred formula in 69.3%, with most centers titrating to a urine output endpoint [37]. A European survey similarly found volume replacement was almost exclusively crystalloid, always in 58% of units and often in another 28% [28]. The two dominant formulas differ in the volume they deliver: in severely burned military casualties, actual 24-hour resuscitation in the modified Brooke group was significantly lower than in the Parkland group (16.9 versus 25.0 L), with the Brooke group receiving 3.8 versus 5.9 mL/kg/%TBSA [3]. The 2024 ABA guideline supports initiating resuscitation at 2 mL/kg/%TBSA to reduce total volumes [5]. Beyond lactated Ringer's, balanced alternatives such as Ringer's acetate have been studied as suitable initial media, and Plasmalyte has been compared without a clear hemodynamic advantage [31][32].
Colloid timing and rescue
The defining clinical question is when, if ever, to add colloid. Traditional teaching delayed colloid until after the first 24 hours; published reports historically suggested starting between 6 and 36 hours after injury [26]. Contemporary practice has shifted earlier, driven by the recognition of fluid creep [12]. Two strategies dominate. In rescue, colloid is reserved for patients whose crystalloid requirements escalate: patients managed with crystalloid alone maintained resuscitation ratios from 0.13 to 0.40, whereas rescue-albumin patients climbed to a mean of 1.97 until albumin produced a dramatic and precipitous return of ratios to predicted ranges [6]. The same pattern holds in children, where adding colloid restored normal in-to-out ratios [11]. In the large North American ABRUPT cohort, albumin was started at or before 12 hours in patients with the highest initial fluid requirements, after 12 hours in those with intermediate requirements, and avoided in patients who responded to crystalloid alone [13]. In planned-early use, albumin is folded in from the start, as in the BET formula, which combines lactated Ringer's with 20% albumin at a 1:1 ratio and achieved 2.58 mL/kg/%BBSA in the first 24 hours, significantly less than the Parkland prediction of 4 mL/kg/%BBSA [27]. Detail on albumin dosing and concentration lives in the albumin page.
Albumin and the volume-sparing effect
The most consistent finding across the comparative literature is that colloid lowers total fluid volume. The 1983 landmark RCT randomized 79 patients to lactated Ringer's or 2.5% albumin-lactated Ringer's and found crystalloid-treated patients required more fluid (3.81 versus 2.98 mL/kg/%TBSA) [2]. A 2017 burn-specific meta-analysis confirmed that albumin-containing solutions reduced total resuscitation volume by 1.00 mL/kg/%TBSA [21]. Albumin also reduces fluid creep and restores resuscitation ratios in both adults and children [6][11]. The ABA guideline reflects this by supporting consideration of albumin in larger burns to lower volumes and improve urine output [5]. The countervailing cost-effectiveness signal is that routine chronic supplementation to maintain serum albumin provides no benefit and is more than four times the cost, so the volume-sparing rationale applies to the acute resuscitation phase rather than to maintenance of serum levels [33].
Hypertonic saline and plasma substitutes
Hypertonic and hyperoncotic strategies pursue the same volume-sparing goal by a different mechanism. In a sheep model, hetastarch and hypertonic saline dextran reduced net fluid volume over 8 hours by 48% and 74% respectively compared with lactated Ringer's, with higher plasma colloid osmotic pressure in both groups [10]. Hypertonic lactated saline reduces early fluid requirements, and in clinical series fewer patients reached intra-abdominal hypertension thresholds [38]. The tradeoff is sodium load: hypertonic 7.5% NaCl 6% dextran reduces volume needs, but elevated serum sodium levels limit the dose that can be safely used; in a sheep model serum sodium rose 11 mEq with this solution to a peak of 152 +/- 5 mEq, whereas with lactated Ringer's it fell 7 mEq to 132 +/- 4 [47]. Fresh frozen plasma is a protein colloid with its own volume-sparing signal; in one randomized comparison the FFP group needed 2.68 versus 4.8 mL/kg/%TBSA for lactated Ringer's, with minimal weight gain and edema [9]. A 2025 fluid-restriction protocol pairing 2 mL/kg with early FFP delivered significantly less fluid than higher-rate groups [22]. Synthetic colloids are more equivocal: balanced HES 130/0.4 added to lactated Ringer's produced no volume-sparing effect and could not be considered superior to crystalloid alone [23], and hyperoncotic HES 200/0.5 was associated with a large signal toward increased mortality and renal failure [24]. Plasma-substitute detail lives in the FFP page.
Complications
The complications of fluid choice are largely the complications of volume. Fluid creep, the term Pruitt applied to the modern drift toward ever-larger volumes, carries the potential for abdominal and extremity compartment syndromes and severe pulmonary insults [4]. Patients in the supra-Baxter cohort received 8.0 versus 3.6 mL/kg/%TBSA, roughly 100% more than the Baxter formula predicted [4]. The clinical stakes are high: exceeding the Ivy index of 250 mL/kg was an independent predictor of death (AUC 0.807), and a greater percentage of Parkland-group patients exceeded it than modified-Brooke patients [3]. Larger resuscitation volumes independently raise the risk of pneumonia, bloodstream infection, ARDS, multiorgan failure, and death [25]. Fluid creep is not driven by burn size alone; opioid administration is an independent, iatrogenic contributor to escalating crystalloid volumes. In a single-center series, adult resuscitation volumes rose from 3.97 to 6.40 mL/kg/%BSA across study periods, and first-24-hour fluid was independently associated with opioid administration as well as age, BSA, intubation, and study period [45]. Opioids increase resuscitation volumes in critically ill patients through both central and peripheral effects on the cardiovascular system [45].
Abdominal compartment syndrome is the signature volume complication. Burn patients are at high risk for secondary intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome from capillary leak and large-volume resuscitation, and most patients who developed abdominal compartment syndrome had required more than 300 mL/kg in the first 24 hours [42][43]. Fluid therapy is a fundamental risk factor for late-onset abdominal compartment syndrome [35]. This is where colloid choice intersects with complications, because reducing volume reduces the syndrome: plasma-resuscitated patients maintained intra-abdominal pressure below complication thresholds as a direct result of the lower volume required, with a greater intra-abdominal pressure rise on crystalloid (26.5 versus 10.6 mm Hg) [8]. A burn-shock meta-analysis found albumin administration accompanied by decreased occurrence of compartment syndrome (OR 0.19) [20]. Pulmonary edema runs the other way for some colloid evidence: in the 1983 RCT, lung water remained unchanged in crystalloid-treated patients but progressively increased in colloid-treated patients over the seven-day study [2]. The ABA guideline supports selective monitoring of intra-abdominal and intraocular pressure during resuscitation [5].
Special Considerations
Inhalation injury raises fluid demand independent of fluid type. As reported in the Dai flame-burn series, Navar and colleagues found patients with inhalation injury required a mean of 5.8 versus 4.0 mL/kg/%burn without it, while Dai's own series found 3.1 versus 2.3 mL/kg/%burn; inhalation-injured patients consistently required volumes in excess of noninhalation cases [30]. In the ABRUPT cohort, albumin patients were older, had larger burns, higher organ-dysfunction scores, and more inhalation injury, so the association between colloid and inhalation injury reflects higher fluid demand rather than a specific colloid indication [13]. Smoke-injured lung is vulnerable to rapid crystalloid loading: in an animal model, the wet-dry lung weight ratio rose 42% with the most aggressive crystalloid infusion, consistent with pulmonary edema [36].
Pediatric burn care has the strongest randomized evidence for early colloid. In children with burns of 15 to 45% TBSA, 5% albumin given at 8 to 12 hours versus 24 hours significantly lowered crystalloid volume on each of the first three days [12]. Larger and deeper burns are the typical trigger for planned-early or rescue colloid across protocols, with albumin patients carrying more inhalation injury and larger total and full-thickness burns [13]. Special-population fluid demand also rises with high-voltage electrical injury and is shaped by body habitus, so fluid type is chosen against a backdrop of population-specific volume needs.
Outcomes
The outcome most reliably supported is volume reduction. Across the comparative literature, colloid-inclusive resuscitation lowers total fluid requirements relative to crystalloid alone, demonstrated in the 1983 RCT, the 2017 meta-analysis, and rescue and pediatric cohorts [2][21][6][12]. Albumin also lowers the in-to-out ratio and restores normal resuscitation ratios [13][6]. The most contested outcome is mortality. A 2017 burn-specific meta-analysis found no significant mortality benefit of albumin solutions and described a neutral effect on mortality in acutely resuscitated burn patients [21]. The 2016 Navickis meta-analysis found no overall mortality effect for albumin in the first 24 hours, but after excluding high-risk-of-bias studies albumin was associated with reduced mortality (OR 0.34) and concluded albumin can improve outcomes of burn shock resuscitation [20]. These sit against the 1998 systematic review, which pooled critically ill patients and reported a burns relative risk of death of 2.40 and an overall relative risk of 1.68, suggesting one additional death for every 17 patients treated with albumin [15]. The 2024 ABA guideline explicitly did not include mortality as a formal outcome because the literature lacks studies of sufficient size and quality to support survival recommendations [5].
Synthetic colloid outcomes are less favorable. Hyperoncotic HES 200/0.5 carried a large effect toward increased overall mortality (43.8% versus 14.3%) and higher renal failure [24]. Balanced HES 130/0.4 produced no volume-sparing benefit and no ARDS difference versus crystalloid [23]. Resuscitation guided by invasive cardiorespiratory monitoring has been shown to drive significantly higher fluid requirements, an adjacent endpoint question that underscores how thin and unstandardized the burn-specific outcome literature remains [26].
Controversies and Evidence Gaps
The central controversy is the albumin mortality question, and it turns on which evidence base one trusts. The 1998 systematic review of randomized trials in critically ill patients reported a strong suggestion that albumin may increase mortality and recommended its use be urgently reviewed and restricted to randomized trials [15]. The 2011 Cochrane update carried forward a burns subgroup relative risk of death of 2.93 and concluded there is no evidence albumin reduces mortality in burns and hypoalbuminemia [40]. Burn-specific syntheses reach different conclusions: the 2017 meta-analysis found a neutral mortality effect [21], and the 2016 Navickis analysis found benefit after sensitivity analysis [20]. The discrepancy reflects that the broad critically-ill pooled estimates were not burn-specific, while the burn-specific datasets are small and heterogeneous. The use of albumin in clinical practice continues to generate controversy decades on [41].
Optimal colloid timing is unresolved. Pediatric randomized data support early albumin at 8 to 12 hours [12], and early hypoalbuminemia at 4 hours has been associated with higher 28-day mortality, prompting calls to explore whether early albumin alters outcome [39]. Some centers go further: a single-center narrative review reports a combined plasma-crystalloid formula and advocates administering colloids during the resuscitation period for major burns starting early after injury, holding that the beneficial effect of protein-based colloids outweighs the potential side effects [46]. But no adequately powered adult trial defines the threshold, and a multicenter trial comparing crystalloids with albumin is underway to confirm the benefit of colloids [1]. The next question burn leaders identify is whether albumin or plasma is the better colloid, a comparison with limited human data [1]. The broader gap is methodologic: there is very little high-quality evidence to guide early management of the severely burned patient, only 11 of 56 critical-care studies in one review met good-quality low-bias criteria, and no generally accepted volume-replacement strategy exists [44][28]. The wiki characterizes the colloid volume-sparing literature as moderately consistent and the mortality literature as contested, with definitive burn-specific randomized data still lacking.
References
[1] Greenhalgh DG "Current Thoughts on Burn Resuscitation." Advances in surgery 2024. PMID: 39089770 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39089770/
[2] Goodwin CW "Randomized trial of efficacy of crystalloid and colloid resuscitation on hemodynamic response and lung water following thermal injury." Annals of surgery 1983. PMID: 6342554 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6342554/
[3] Chung KK et al. "Resuscitation of severely burned military casualties: fluid begets more fluid." The Journal of trauma 2009. PMID: 19667873 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19667873/
[4] Friedrich JB et al. "Is supra-Baxter resuscitation in burn patients a new phenomenon?" Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2004. PMID: 15225912 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15225912/
[5] Cartotto R et al. "American Burn Association Clinical Practice Guidelines on Burn Shock Resuscitation." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2024. PMID: 38051821 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38051821/
[6] Lawrence A et al. "Colloid administration normalizes resuscitation ratio and ameliorates 'fluid creep'." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2010. PMID: 20061836 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20061836/
[7] Cartotto R "A review of the use of human albumin in burn patients." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2012. PMID: 23143614 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23143614/
[8] O'Mara MS "A prospective, randomized evaluation of intra-abdominal pressures with crystalloid and colloid resuscitation in burn patients." The Journal of trauma 2005. PMID: 15920417 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15920417/
[9] Du GB "Influences of different resuscitation regimens on acute early weight gain in extensively burned patients." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 1991. PMID: 2054073 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2054073/
[10] Guha SC et al. "Burn resuscitation: crystalloid versus colloid versus hypertonic saline hyperoncotic colloid in sheep." Critical care medicine 1996. PMID: 8917036 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8917036/
[11] Faraklas I "Colloid normalizes resuscitation ratio in pediatric burns." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2011. PMID: 21131844 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21131844/
[12] Müller Dittrich MH "Evaluation of the 'Early' Use of Albumin in Children with Extensive Burns: A Randomized Controlled Trial." Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies 2016. PMID: 27077832 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27077832/
[13] Greenhalgh DG et al. "Burn Resuscitation Practices in North America: Results of the Acute Burn ResUscitation Multicenter Prospective Trial (ABRUPT)." Annals of surgery 2023. PMID: 34417368 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34417368/
[14] Chen LW "Reversal of the effect of albumin on gut barrier function in burn by the inhibition of inducible isoform of nitric oxide synthase." Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill. : 1960) 2003. PMID: 14609870 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14609870/
[15] Cochrane Injuries Group Albumin Reviewers "Human albumin administration in critically ill patients: systematic review of randomised controlled trials." BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 1998. PMID: 9677209 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9677209/
[16] Kravitz M "A randomized trial of plasma exchange in the treatment of burn shock." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 1989. PMID: 2921255 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2921255/
[17] Welling H et al. "Endothelial glycocalyx shedding in patients with burns." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2020. PMID: 31866179 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31866179/
[18] Shoemaker WC "Relative hemodynamic effectiveness of whole blood and plasma expanders in burned patients." Surgery, gynecology & obstetrics 1977. PMID: 871002 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/871002/
[19] Meredith JW "Measurement of extravascular lung water in sheep during colloid and crystalloid resuscitation from smoke inhalation." The American surgeon 1983. PMID: 6546182 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6546182/
[20] Navickis RJ "Albumin in Burn Shock Resuscitation: A Meta-Analysis of Controlled Clinical Studies." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2016. PMID: 25426807 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25426807/
[21] Eljaiek R "Albumin administration for fluid resuscitation in burn patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2017. PMID: 27613476 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27613476/
[22] Kahn SA et al. "Challenging Legacy Burn Resuscitation Paradigms with Fluid Restriction and Early Plasma." Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2025. PMID: 39902941 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39902941/
[23] Béchir M "Early fluid resuscitation with hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 (6%) in severe burn injury: a randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial." Critical care (London, England) 2013. PMID: 24365167 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24365167/
[24] Béchir M et al. "Early fluid resuscitation with hyperoncotic hydroxyethyl starch 200/0.5 (10%) in severe burn injury." Critical care (London, England) 2010. PMID: 20584291 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20584291/
[25] Klein MB et al. "The association between fluid administration and outcome following major burn: a multicenter study." Annals of surgery 2007. PMID: 17414612 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17414612/
[26] Holm C "Resuscitation in shock associated with burns. Tradition or evidence-based medicine?" Resuscitation 2000. PMID: 10825614 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10825614/
[27] Blanco-Schweizer P et al. "Resuscitation with albumin using BET formula keeps at bay fluid administration in burned patients. An observational study." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2020. PMID: 31848084 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31848084/
[28] Boldt J "Fluid management in burn patients: results from a European survey-more questions than answers." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2008. PMID: 18201828 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18201828/
[29] Datchinamourthy T et al. "Comparison of effect of Ringer's lactate and isotonic bicarbonate combination therapy with Ringer's lactate alone in early fluid resuscitation of burns patients - A randomised controlled trial." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2025. PMID: 41197195 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41197195/
[30] Dai NT et al. "The comparison of early fluid therapy in extensive flame burns between inhalation and noninhalation injuries." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 1998. PMID: 9882069 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9882069/
[31] Gille J et al. "Safety of resuscitation with Ringer's acetate solution in severe burn (VolTRAB)--an observational trial." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2014. PMID: 24342121 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24342121/
[32] Chaussard M et al. "Physiological response to fluid resuscitation with Ringer lactate versus Plasmalyte in critically ill burn patients." Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985) 2020. PMID: 32027547 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32027547/
[33] Melinyshyn A "Albumin supplementation for hypoalbuminemia following burns: unnecessary and costly!" Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2013. PMID: 23128130 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23128130/
[34] Chen LW "Inhibition of nitric oxide synthase reverses the effect of albumin on lung damage in burn." Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2005. PMID: 15804472 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15804472/
[35] Boehm D et al. "Fluid Management as a Risk Factor for Intra-abdominal Compartment Syndrome in Burn Patients: A Total Body Surface Area-Independent Multicenter Trial Part I." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2019. PMID: 30918949 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30918949/
[36] Clark WR "Effects of crystalloid on lung fluid balance after smoke inhalation." Annals of surgery 1988. PMID: 3389945 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3389945/
[37] Greenhalgh DG "Burn resuscitation: the results of the ISBI/ABA survey." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2010. PMID: 20018451 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20018451/
[38] Oda J et al. "Hypertonic lactated saline resuscitation reduces the risk of abdominal compartment syndrome in severely burned patients." The Journal of trauma 2006. PMID: 16456437 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16456437/
[39] de Tymowski C et al. "Early hypoalbuminemia is associated with 28-day mortality in severely burned patients: A retrospective cohort study." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2020. PMID: 31629616 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31629616/
[40] Roberts I "Human albumin solution for resuscitation and volume expansion in critically ill patients." The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2011. PMID: 22071799 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22071799/
[41] Erstad BL "The use of albumin in clinical practice." Archives of internal medicine 1991. PMID: 1902657 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1902657/
[42] Wise R et al. "Incidence and prognosis of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome in severely burned patients: Pilot study and review of the literature." Anaesthesiology intensive therapy 2016. PMID: 26588479 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26588479/
[43] Oda J et al. "Resuscitation fluid volume and abdominal compartment syndrome in patients with major burns." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2006. PMID: 16451820 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16451820/
[44] Henschke A "Burns management in ICU: Quality of the evidence: A systematic review." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2016. PMID: 27268108 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27268108/
[45] Wibbenmeyer L et al. "The impact of opioid administration on resuscitation volumes in thermally injured patients." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2010. PMID: 20061837 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20061837/
[46] Fodor L et al. "Controversies in fluid resuscitation for burn management: literature review and our experience." Injury 2006. PMID: 16118012 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16118012/
[47] Milner SM et al. "A comparison of two different 2400 mOsm solutions for resuscitation of major burns." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 1997. PMID: 9095419 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9095419/