Fluid resuscitation in burns

Overview

Fluid resuscitation sustains organ perfusion through the early post-burn period, when capillary leak shifts plasma from the vasculature into the wound and into uninjured tissues at rates unmatched in other shock states. The clinical decision space is bounded by two failure modes. Under-resuscitation produces burn shock, acute kidney injury, and early death. Over-resuscitation drives fluid creep, pulmonary edema, extremity compartment syndromes, and abdominal compartment syndrome ^[1,2]. Baxter and Shires first documented in 1968 that restoration of the functional extracellular fluid in severe burns required greater volumes delivered at a faster rate than had previously been anticipated, and that circulatory hemodynamics in the first 24 to 30 hours post-burn were closely correlated with maintenance of that volume ^[3]. Their observations underwrote the Parkland formula and defined the operating envelope for the next five decades; contemporary practice is now shaped as much by avoidance of excess volume as by adequacy of replacement ^[1,2].

The 2024 American Burn Association (ABA) Clinical Practice Guidelines on Burn Shock Resuscitation provide the current field standard, superseding the 2008 ABA practice guidelines for most recommendations ^[4,5]. The 2024 guideline recommends initiating resuscitation at 2 mL/kg/%TBSA to lower resuscitation volumes and considering albumin in patients with larger burns to reduce volume and improve urine output ^[4]. Formal resuscitation is reserved for adults and children with burns greater than 20% total body surface area (TBSA), where capillary leak becomes systemic; optimal resuscitation in children with major burns is essential to prevent burn shock while preventing complications of over-resuscitation ^[5,6].

Contemporary practice is heterogeneous across burn centers; starting rates, endpoint targets, and colloid use vary substantially, and most modern centers administer crystalloid volumes exceeding Parkland predictions ^[1,2]. This page orients the reader to parent-topic essentials (burn shock physiology, formula selection, titration, complications) and links to nine subtopic pages that treat deeper clinical decisions: [[fluid-creep-in-burns]], [[hypertonic-saline-burn-resuscitation]], [[albumin-resuscitation-in-burns]], [[ffp-resuscitation-in-burns]], [[pediatric-burn-resuscitation]], [[abdominal-compartment-syndrome-in-burns]], [[hemodynamic-monitoring-burn-resuscitation]], [[ai-ml-decision-support-burn-resuscitation]], and [[prehospital-burn-resuscitation]].

Epidemiology

Resuscitation failure is a measurable driver of early burn mortality, and practice patterns are heterogeneous. A European survey of burn centers reported that volume therapy differs widely across units and that no generally accepted replacement strategy exists, with most centers using crystalloid as the primary fluid and a wide range of colloid and monitoring practices ^[7]. An ISBI/ABA survey of North American and international centers reported the Parkland formula as dominant (69.3%) with lactated Ringer's (91.9%) as the preferred solution, but 55.1% of responders acknowledged administering more fluid than the formula predicts ^[8]. Faraklas et al. confirmed that fluid creep is not explained by nursing-level deviation from protocol: under a tight single-institution protocol, more seriously injured patients still exceeded Parkland prediction despite excellent adherence ^[9].

Saffle's 2007 review coined the term "fluid creep" to describe the observation that contemporary burn patients routinely receive volumes in excess of the 4 mL/kg/%TBSA Parkland prediction, driven largely by progressive edema formation in unburned areas beyond the first 8 hours post-burn ^[1]. Contributors include escalating parenteral opioid use, which Sullivan et al. documented had increased several-fold between the 1970s and 2000 in matched burn cohorts and which carries hemodynamic consequences that may prompt compensatory fluid boluses ^[10]. Aboelatta et al. demonstrated that transpulmonary thermodilution-guided resuscitation targeting supranormal intrathoracic blood volume, extravascular lung water, and cardiac index values led to significantly higher fluid administration and significant tissue edema rather than to tighter control ^[11]. The [[fluid-creep-in-burns]] subtopic treats this problem in depth.

Pediatric burns carry distinct epidemiology. Optimal fluid resuscitation in children with major burns is crucial to prevent burn shock and the complications of over-resuscitation, and pediatric endpoint-driven resuscitation research remains limited: among systematic-review studies using urine output as the primary endpoint, targets range from 0.5-1.0 mL/kg/hour to 2-3 mL/kg/hour, and no pediatric trial has compared different UO targets directly ^[6]. Inhalation injury, full-thickness burn depth, and delayed resuscitation each independently increase volume requirements ^[5,12]. The [[pediatric-burn-resuscitation]] subtopic addresses these patterns.

Pathophysiology

Burn shock is a distributive shock with a large interstitial component. Thermal injury damages dermal microvasculature, releases inflammatory mediators, and produces capillary permeability increases that are both local to the wound and generalized to uninjured tissues ^[13]. Edema fluid accumulates locally and systemically, limits exchange of nutrients in the burn wound, and compromises vulnerable tissues ^[13]. Plasma shifts into the interstitium most rapidly in the early post-burn hours and begin to reabsorb over the following day as capillary integrity is progressively restored; Baxter and Shires observed that changes in circulatory status after the first 24 to 30 hours become uncoupled from ongoing fluid administration ^[3].

Two cardiovascular consequences follow. Reduced preload drops cardiac output; untreated, this progresses to inadequate organ perfusion, lactic acidosis, acute kidney injury, and death. Elevated day-0 lactate and failure of lactate clearance within the first 24 hours are independent predictors of non-survival: patients whose lactate normalizes have a survival rate of 68%, compared with 32% in patients whose lactate remains supra-normal, making serial lactate a more sensitive signal of resuscitation adequacy than urine output alone ^[14]. Progressive edema formation in unburned tissues after the first 8 hours, the mechanism behind systemic conjunctival, scalp, and pulmonary edema in large burns, is the principal driver of fluid creep and is the reason restrictive strategies alone cannot prevent all edema-related morbidity ^[1,13].

The physiological implication for resuscitation is direct. Crystalloid replaces plasma volume but distributes rapidly into the interstitium because the endothelial barrier is impaired, and colloid-containing regimens generate oncotic pressure that can reduce progressive crystalloid requirements once the initial resuscitation is underway ^[15,16]. Resuscitation to supranormal end-organ targets (cardiac index, intrathoracic blood volume) is associated with more tissue edema, not less, and the end-organ variables traditionally used to guide therapy must be interpreted against the patient's total volume trajectory ^[11].

Classification

Burns are classified for resuscitation purposes by total body surface area involved. The 2008 ABA practice guidelines and subsequent pediatric systematic reviews support formal fluid resuscitation for adults and children with burns greater than 20% TBSA, with crystalloid requirements calculated in the 2 to 4 mL/kg/%TBSA range during the first 24 hours ^[5,6]. Smaller burns receive maintenance fluids and do not require formula-driven resuscitation. Full-thickness depth, inhalation injury, and delayed resuscitation each raise predicted volumes beyond the surface-area-based starting estimate ^[5,12].

Assessment

Accurate TBSA estimation is the single most consequential assessment decision in burn resuscitation because it determines total predicted volume. Bodger et al. compared three techniques for Parkland formula calculation in pediatric burns and found that pen-and-paper calculation produced significantly higher error rates than either a dedicated nomogram or an electronic calculator, with 16.2% of pen-and-paper calculations producing a magnitude of error of 75% or greater, compared with 3.8% for the nomogram ^[17]. Inadequate volume replacement remains common when providers lack burn-specific training ^[18]. The [[ai-ml-decision-support-burn-resuscitation]] subtopic treats computer-based TBSA and fluid calculation tools and their outcomes ^[19].

Weight and TBSA are captured at presentation. The 2024 ABA-endorsed starting rate of 2 mL/kg/%TBSA is then titrated up or down in response to urine output ^[4]. Kahn et al.'s Burn Resuscitation Index (a preprinted lookup table that cross-references burn size score against patient weight) produced significantly higher correct-calculation rates among surgery and emergency medicine providers than Parkland formula calculations done from memory, and serves as a bedside aid for non-burn-center providers ^[20].

Resuscitation endpoints anchor ongoing titration. Hourly urine output remains the most widely used and most durable target: 0.5-1.0 mL/kg/hr in adults and 1.0-1.5 mL/kg/hr in children, with a shift to adult targets once a child reaches 30 kg ^[5,18]. Lactate and base deficit complement urine output by identifying patients whose urine output is adequate but whose cellular perfusion is not; day-0 lactate and its clearance are independent mortality predictors ^[14]. Central venous pressure correlates poorly with true volume status in burn patients because it is driven more by intra-abdominal pressure than by intravascular volume; total blood volume index from transpulmonary thermodilution tracks better with cardiac output and stroke volume during resuscitation ^[21]. The 2024 ABA guideline explicitly does not recommend using transpulmonary thermodilution-derived variables to guide resuscitation, citing evidence that targeting those variables produces more fluid administration and edema ^[4,11]. The [[hemodynamic-monitoring-burn-resuscitation]] subtopic treats endpoint selection in detail.

Management

Formula selection and starting dose

The Parkland formula (4 mL/kg/%TBSA crystalloid over 24 hours, half in the first 8) and the modified Brooke formula (2 mL/kg/%TBSA) represent the two dominant starting-point strategies ^[1]. The 2024 ABA guideline recommends the lower 2 mL/kg/%TBSA starting rate to reduce total resuscitation volumes ^[4]. Chung et al. reported on military casualties resuscitated with the modified Brooke versus the Parkland formula and found that the modified Brooke group received significantly less total 24-hour fluid (3.8 vs 5.9 mL/kg/%TBSA, P<0.0001) and fewer patients exceeded the Ivy index (29% vs 57%, P=0.026), with no difference in measured outcomes ^[22]. This evidence anchors the starting-low-and-titrating-up approach now endorsed by the ABA ^[4,22].

Lactated Ringer's is the workhorse crystalloid. A recent single-center randomized trial comparing Ringer's lactate alone with Ringer's lactate combined with isotonic bicarbonate in severe burns found that fluid requirements, urine output, AKI incidence, vasopressor use, SOFA scores, and 7-day mortality were comparable between arms, with only exploratory acid-base advantages to the bicarbonate combination ^[23]. No balanced alternative has demonstrated superiority over Ringer's lactate for the standard resuscitation endpoint set.

Titration

The practical work of burn resuscitation is hour-by-hour titration of the infusion rate to maintain the urine output target. Lawrence et al. demonstrated that patients managed on crystalloid alone maintained resuscitation ratios (actual volume over predicted volume) within the 0.13 to 0.40 range, whereas patients who progressively required more fluid reached mean ratios approaching 1.97 before colloid was added; administration of 5% albumin produced a prompt return of hourly ratios to within predicted range ^[15]. The actual-to-predicted ratio is therefore a more useful titration surface than cumulative volume alone: a ratio that is rising over successive hours is the signal to consider colloid rescue or other adjuncts rather than to add crystalloid.

Colloid rescue

Colloid administration after the initial crystalloid phase can restore the resuscitation ratio and reduce total volume in patients trending toward over-resuscitation; in Lawrence et al.'s cohort, colloid-supplemented patients converted from a rising fluid creep trajectory to a normalized trajectory within hours of starting 5% albumin, and no patient in the series developed abdominal compartment syndrome ^[15]. Two colloid products have established clinical roles in burn resuscitation: 5% albumin and fresh frozen plasma. Each has its own evidence base and dedicated subtopic page.

Albumin is the most widely used colloid strategy in North American practice. Navickis et al.'s meta-analysis of controlled clinical studies of burn-shock albumin found that once two trials at high risk of bias were excluded, albumin infusion was associated with reduced mortality (pooled odds ratio 0.34, 95% CI 0.19-0.58, P<0.001) and with a decreased incidence of compartment syndrome (pooled odds ratio 0.19, 95% CI 0.07-0.50, P<0.001), while noting that the scope and quality of evidence remain limited ^[24]. A 2011 Cochrane review of human albumin across all critically ill populations found the pooled mortality relative risk at 1.05 (95% CI 0.95-1.16) and no evidence of mortality benefit in burns or hypoalbuminemia; the burn subgroup itself carried a relative risk of 2.93 (95% CI 1.28-6.72), the highest signal of harm of any subgroup in the review ^[25]. The discordance between the Cochrane burn subgroup signal and the burn-specific meta-analysis remains a central tension in the evidence, and the 2024 ABA guideline's conditional recommendation for albumin in larger burns reflects the uncertainty rather than resolving it ^[4,24,25]. A pediatric RCT by Müller Dittrich et al. randomized 46 children with burns >15-45% TBSA to early albumin (8-12 hours post-burn) versus later albumin (24 hours) and reported reduced crystalloid volumes on days 1, 2, and 3, fewer cases of fluid creep (4.3% vs 56.5%), and a shorter median hospital length of stay (14 vs 18 days, P=0.004), without a demonstrated mortality benefit ^[26]. Routine correction of hypoalbuminemia to normalize laboratory values is not supported: Melinyshyn et al. found that supplementing albumin to maintain serum albumin ≥20 g/L produced no difference in SOFA scores, hospital stay, ventilator duration, or mortality, at more than four-fold the daily cost ^[27]. See [[albumin-resuscitation-in-burns]].

Fresh frozen plasma (FFP) is the alternative colloid with the longest history in burn resuscitation. Alexander et al.'s 1979 RCT of FFP versus plasma protein derivative in patients with burns ≥45% TBSA found that plasma conferred only slightly better support of host resistance, counterbalanced by increased risk of viral hepatitis, a marginal benefit that did not establish clear superiority ^[28]. Contemporary FFP protocols couple restrictive crystalloid dosing with early plasma administration. Kahn et al. described a 2 mL/kg/%TBSA + early FFP strategy and reported in a retrospective comparison that patients on the restrictive + FFP protocol received significantly less fluid than 3 mL/kg or Parkland controls (1.7 vs 3.3 vs 4.15 mL/kg/%TBSA) and had significantly lower rates of mortality, mechanical ventilation, tracheostomy, and hemodialysis, with minimal acute kidney injury despite the restriction ^[29]. An earlier three-arm cohort by Du et al. comparing lactated Ringer's, hypertonic saline, and FFP resuscitation found that FFP produced the smallest median 24-hour weight gain (2.38% versus 10.69% for Ringer's), consistent with the oncotic mechanism ^[16]. See [[ffp-resuscitation-in-burns]].

Vitamin C (ascorbic acid)

High-dose ascorbic acid as an adjunct to crystalloid resuscitation was established by Tanaka et al. in a 2000 single-center RCT. In patients with burns of 30% TBSA or greater, the ascorbic acid group required 3.0 ± 1.7 versus 5.5 ± 3.1 mL/kg/%TBSA of 24-hour fluid volume (P<0.01), gained less weight in the first 24 hours (9.2% vs 17.8%), and had improved oxygenation ratios ^[30]. A Cochrane-style systematic review by Edgar et al. confirmed that continuous ascorbic acid in acute burn resuscitation reduced local wound edema and systemic fluid retention with large effect sizes, but flagged that each outcome was based on a small single-facility study ^[13]. A best-evidence emergency-medicine review concurred that preliminary evidence suggests vitamin C can reduce resuscitation volume, improve wound healing, and reduce ventilation requirements, and emphasized the need for confirmatory large trials ^[31].

Despite this evidence, the 2024 ABA guideline was unable to issue a recommendation on high-dose vitamin C because confirmatory multicenter trial data are lacking ^[4]. Vitamin C may serve as an adjunct to crystalloid resuscitation in large burns at centers experienced with its administration, but does not replace crystalloid titration or substitute for colloid rescue in patients with established fluid creep.

Hydroxyethyl starch (historical)

Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) preparations were used as alternative colloids in burn resuscitation for decades. The European Medicines Agency withdrew HES products from use in critically ill and burn patients in 2013 after reviewing evidence of increased mortality and renal injury across critical care populations ^[32]. A contemporaneous RCT by Béchir et al. compared HES 130/0.4 (6%) with lactated Ringer's alone in severe burns and found no volume-sparing effect and no superiority of HES plus Ringer's over Ringer's alone for creatinine, urine output, ARDS, ICU length of stay, or mortality ^[33]. A more recent RCT compared HES with 5% albumin in massive burns and reported non-significant differences in resuscitation volume, intra-abdominal pressure, and renal function, but this trial did not revisit the underlying safety signal that motivated the EMA withdrawal ^[34]. HES is no longer a live clinical option in regulated jurisdictions and is retained here for historical context.

Hypertonic saline, prehospital, and decision support

Hypertonic saline resuscitation carries a long history of contested evidence. Huang et al. found that burn patients resuscitated with hypertonic sodium solutions had a fourfold increase in renal failure (40.0% vs 10.1%) and twice the mortality of matched lactated Ringer's controls, despite a transient fluid-sparing effect in the first 24 hours ^[35]. A later trial of hypertonic lactated saline by Oda et al. reported a lower incidence of intra-abdominal hypertension (14% vs 50%) and reduced peak intra-abdominal pressure in a smaller fluid-volume arm, suggesting the hypertonic strategy may be usable in selected patients but does not resolve the earlier safety signal ^[36]. See [[hypertonic-saline-burn-resuscitation]]. Enteral resuscitation protocols are being tested as alternatives in low-resource settings: a feasibility RCT by Shrestha et al. in Nepal reported 91% consent and 93% adherence to the prescribed enteral resuscitation volumes, supporting the operational viability of enteral-based resuscitation in low-resource contexts ^[37]. See [[prehospital-burn-resuscitation]]. Computer decision support for fluid titration is weakly endorsed by the 2024 ABA guideline; Salinas et al. demonstrated that a decision-support system reduced total crystalloid volume and improved the proportion of time patients spent within urine output targets compared with standard clinician-directed titration ^[4,19]. See [[ai-ml-decision-support-burn-resuscitation]].

Complications

The complications of burn fluid resuscitation cluster around the over-resuscitation failure mode. Oda et al. documented that patients requiring more than 300 mL/kg in the first 24 hours developed abdominal compartment syndrome at significantly higher rates and with elevated intra-abdominal pressure, peak airway pressure, and tachycardia compared with less aggressively resuscitated patients ^[38]. Ivy et al.'s landmark series established a bladder pressure greater than 25 mm Hg as the threshold for intra-abdominal hypertension in burn patients, described intra-abdominal hypertension as common in major burns and abdominal compartment syndrome as regular in patients with >70% TBSA, and recommended bladder pressure monitoring once resuscitation volume exceeded 0.25 L/kg ^[39]. Wise et al. reported in a contemporary cohort of severely burned patients that 78.6% developed intra-abdominal hypertension and 28.6% developed abdominal compartment syndrome; overall mortality was 26.8%, rising to 34.1% in the intra-abdominal hypertension subgroup (P=0.014) and 62.5% in the abdominal compartment syndrome subgroup (P<0.0001), with cumulative 48-hour fluid balance significantly higher in patients who developed the syndrome ^[2]. See [[abdominal-compartment-syndrome-in-burns]].

Pulmonary edema and prolonged mechanical ventilation follow the same pathway. Zhang et al.'s restrictive fluid management strategy in severely burned patients produced a lower fluid balance in the first week post-burn and a higher pulmonary oxygenation index from post-burn day 3 through day 14 compared with standard fluid management, supporting restrictive strategies for prevention of organ complications even without demonstrating a ventilator-day benefit ^[40]. A classical comparison by Goodwin et al. found that colloid-supplemented resuscitation required less total fluid than crystalloid alone but produced progressive accumulation of extravascular lung water through the first post-burn week, illustrating the trade-off between volume control and oncotic-pressure-driven pulmonary edema in colloid strategies ^[41].

Acute kidney injury results from both under-resuscitation (pre-renal azotemia progressing to acute tubular necrosis) and over-resuscitation (abdominal compartment syndrome compressing renal vessels). Lactate trend and urine output trajectory together distinguish the two ^[14]. Opioid creep is a complication of contemporary practice: Sullivan et al. demonstrated that parenteral opioid use has escalated in parallel with fluid creep and that opioid-induced hemodynamic effects may prompt reflexive volume administration rather than pharmacologic correction, compounding the fluid creep problem ^[10].

Special considerations

Pediatric burns

Pediatric resuscitation differs from adult resuscitation across multiple dimensions: higher surface-area-to-volume ratio, age-dependent urine output targets (1.0-1.5 mL/kg/hr for children, shifting to the adult 0.5-1.0 mL/kg/hr target once weight reaches 30 kg), and the fact that most pediatric endpoint research is based on single-endpoint cohorts rather than comparative trials ^[5,18,6]. Kraft et al. compared pediatric burn patients resuscitated with PiCCO-guided transcardiopulmonary thermodilution against a conventional control group and reported that the PiCCO-guided group received significantly less fluid with similar urine output and a lower positive fluid balance, with significantly lower heart rates and a lower incidence of cardiac and renal failure; the authors characterized thermodilution-guided resuscitation as an effective adjunct with beneficial effects on post-burn morbidity ^[42]. Venter et al. studied early enteral resuscitation and early enteral feeding versus late enteral feeding in children with major burns and reported that the early-enteral group showed a more favorable anabolic hormonal profile (higher insulin, lower growth hormone), resolved diarrhoea faster, lost less weight, and experienced no pulmonary aspiration, supporting enteral resuscitation as safe and effective and particularly suited for children in developing countries ^[43]. See [[pediatric-burn-resuscitation]].

Obesity

Obesity complicates weight-based formula calculation. Use of actual body weight in the Parkland formula produces predicted volumes that exceed physiologic capacity, driving fluid creep and compartment syndrome. Cancio et al. found in adult burn patients that receipt of over 4 mL/kg/% burn was predicted at admission by weight (inversely) and TBSA, with greater volume requirements in lower-weight patients, a pattern consistent with weight-denominated formulas producing systematic over-prediction in high-weight patients ^[44]. The Kahn et al. restrictive protocol uses an adjusted body weight index (ideal weight + 0.3 × [actual - ideal]) in place of actual weight for patients at the heavier end of the distribution, providing one operationalization of the adjusted-weight approach ^[29].

Electrical injury and rhabdomyolysis

High-voltage electrical injury and rhabdomyolysis management fall outside the scope of the parent-topic claim set on this page. Fluid, urine output, and pigment-clearance considerations specific to these patterns are deferred to future subtopic work.

Inhalation injury

Inhalation injury raises predicted fluid requirements. Navar et al. demonstrated in matched cohorts that patients with concurrent inhalation injury required a mean of 5.76 mL/kg/%TBSA and a sodium load 38% higher than patients with cutaneous burns alone (3.98 mL/kg/%TBSA), when each was resuscitated to identical urine output targets ^[12]. Patients with combined cutaneous and inhalation injury should be resuscitated to the standard urine output target starting from the cutaneous TBSA-derived formula, with close attention to pulmonary edema risk as colloid rescue is weighed ^[4,12].

Outcomes

Resuscitation quality is measurable and predictive. Patients resuscitated close to Parkland prediction have lower mortality, shorter mechanical ventilation, and fewer compartment syndromes than those whose actual volume substantially exceeds prediction; exceeding the Ivy index (250 mL/kg in 24 hours) is an independent predictor of death ^[22]. Kahn et al.'s Burn Resuscitation Index provides a simple bedside tool for tracking whether a patient is on or off the predicted volume trajectory ^[20]. Fluid creep (actual-to-predicted ratios persistently above 1) tracks with abdominal compartment syndrome, prolonged ventilation, and dialysis requirements in severe burns ^[1,2,29].

Day-0 lactate and persistent base deficit are early mortality predictors independent of resuscitation volume: patients who clear lactate to normal within 24 hours have a 68% survival rate compared with 32% in patients whose lactate remains elevated, reflecting combined burden of under-resuscitation, cardiac dysfunction, and comorbidity ^[14]. Cancio et al. reported that base deficit at 24 hours and TBSA-plus-age were the strongest mortality predictors, while volume itself did not predict mortality once underlying injury severity was accounted for ^[44].

Pediatric outcomes are strongly influenced by resuscitation timing. Barrow et al. demonstrated that severely burned children who received fluid resuscitation delayed by 2 hours or more had significantly higher rates of sepsis, renal failure, cardiac-arrest non-survival, and overall mortality than those resuscitated within 2 hours of injury (P<0.001); the authors identified resuscitation timing as one of the most important modifiable steps in preventing multi-organ failure and death ^[45]. Wolf et al.'s series of 103 children with ≥80% TBSA burns (≥70% full-thickness) reinforced this pattern: delays in resuscitation, alongside inhalation injury, burn size, and sepsis, were the strongest predictors of the rare deaths that still occurred in the modern era of early excision and grafting ^[46]. Pediatric burn mortality has fallen substantially over the past three decades, and improvements in resuscitation timing contribute alongside early excision and intensive care ^[45,46].

Controversies and evidence gaps

The field has several active controversies, each with a dedicated subtopic treatment but summarized here for orientation.

Optimal starting dose. The shift from Parkland's 4 mL/kg/%TBSA to modified Brooke's 2 mL/kg/%TBSA as the ABA-endorsed starting dose reflects two decades of fluid creep observation and the Chung military comparison ^[1,4,22]. A definitive multicenter prospective RCT of the two starting doses has not been performed, and the current recommendation rests on observational and retrospective evidence.

Role and timing of colloid. Whether colloid should be deployed early, late, or only as rescue for established fluid creep is unsettled. Albumin and FFP each have supporters; the burn-specific Navickis meta-analysis and the Cochrane critically-ill meta-analysis point in opposite directions for burn mortality, and no head-to-head trial of albumin versus FFP exists ^[24,25]. The 2024 ABA guideline offers conditional recommendations on albumin while noting the insufficiency of evidence for strong recommendations on timing and explicitly declines to make any FFP recommendation ^[4]. The [[albumin-resuscitation-in-burns]] and [[ffp-resuscitation-in-burns]] subtopics treat this in depth.

Endpoints beyond urine output. Whether adding transpulmonary thermodilution-derived measures to urine output titration improves outcomes is contested. Aboelatta et al. found that PiCCO-guided resuscitation targeting supranormal cardiac and ITBV values produced more fluid administration and more edema, not less, and the 2024 ABA guideline does not recommend these variables for routine use ^[4,11]. Küntscher et al. confirmed that CVP correlates poorly with actual volume status because it is driven by intra-abdominal pressure, supporting ITBV over CVP when invasive monitoring is used ^[21]. The [[hemodynamic-monitoring-burn-resuscitation]] subtopic addresses these trade-offs.

Vitamin C definitiveness. A quarter century after Tanaka's landmark RCT, high-dose ascorbic acid has neither been confirmed in a multicenter trial nor definitively refuted ^[30,31]. The 2024 ABA guideline's inability to issue a recommendation reflects this state ^[4]. Centers with experience continue to use it; centers without experience typically do not initiate it.

Fresh frozen plasma availability. FFP-based resuscitation protocols depend on local blood bank support and fresh plasma availability, which is not uniform internationally. The modified Brooke plus early FFP strategy remains a civilian-center and military practice rather than a universal standard ^[22,29].

References

[1] Saffle JIL. The phenomenon of "fluid creep" in acute burn resuscitation. J Burn Care Res. 2007;28(3):382-395. PMID: 17438489.

[2] Wise R, Jacobs J, Pilate S, et al. Incidence and prognosis of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome in severely burned patients. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2016;48(2):95-109. PMID: 26588479.

[3] Baxter CR, Shires T. Physiological response to crystalloid resuscitation of severe burns. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1968;150(3):874-894. PMID: 4973463.

[4] Cartotto R, Johnson LS, Savetamal A, et al. American Burn Association Clinical Practice Guidelines on Burn Shock Resuscitation. J Burn Care Res. 2024. PMID: 38051821.

[5] Pham TN, Cancio LC, Gibran NS; American Burn Association. American Burn Association practice guidelines burn shock resuscitation. J Burn Care Res. 2008;29(1):257-266. PMID: 18182930.

[6] Stutchfield C, Davies A, Young A. Fluid resuscitation in paediatric burns: how do we get it right? A systematic review of the evidence. Arch Dis Child. 2019;104(12):1181-1186. PMID: 30262511.

[7] Boldt J, Papsdorf M. Fluid management in burn patients: results from a European survey-more questions than answers. Burns. 2008;34(3):328-338. PMID: 18201828.

[8] Greenhalgh DG. Burn resuscitation: the results of the ISBI/ABA survey. Burns. 2010;36(2):176-182. PMID: 20018451.

[9] Faraklas I, Cochran A, Saffle J. Review of a fluid resuscitation protocol: "fluid creep" is not due to nursing error. J Burn Care Res. 2012;33(1):74-83. PMID: 22240507.

[10] Sullivan SR, Friedrich JB, Engrav LH, et al. "Opioid creep" is real and may be the cause of "fluid creep." Burns. 2004;30(6):583-590. PMID: 15302427.

[11] Aboelatta Y, Abdelsalam A. Volume overload of fluid resuscitation in acutely burned patients using transpulmonary thermodilution technique. J Burn Care Res. 2013;34(3):349-354. PMID: 23237818.

[12] Navar PD, Saffle JR, Warden GD. Effect of inhalation injury on fluid resuscitation requirements after thermal injury. Am J Surg. 1985;150(6):716-720. PMID: 4073365.

[13] Edgar DW, Fish JS, Gomez M, Wood FM. Local and systemic treatments for acute edema after burn injury: a systematic review of the literature. J Burn Care Res. 2011;32(2):334-347. PMID: 21252688.

[14] Kamolz LP, Andel H, Schramm W, et al. Lactate: early predictor of morbidity and mortality in patients with severe burns. Burns. 2005;31(8):986-990. PMID: 16274931.

[15] Lawrence A, Faraklas I, Watkins H, et al. Colloid administration normalizes resuscitation ratio and ameliorates "fluid creep." J Burn Care Res. 2010;31(1):40-47. PMID: 20061836.

[16] Du GB, Slater H, Goldfarb IW. Influences of different resuscitation regimens on acute early weight gain in extensively burned patients. Burns. 1991;17(2):147-150. PMID: 2054073.

[17] Bodger O, Theron A, Williams D. Comparison of three techniques for calculation of the Parkland formula to aid fluid resuscitation in paediatric burns. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2013;30(8):492-498. PMID: 23673688.

[18] Warden GD. Burn shock resuscitation. World J Surg. 1992;16(1):16-23. PMID: 1290260.

[19] Salinas J, Chung KK, Mann EA, et al. Computerized decision support system improves fluid resuscitation following severe burns: an original study. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(9):2031-2038. PMID: 21532472.

[20] Kahn SA, Schoemann M, Lentz CW. Burn resuscitation index: a simple method for calculating fluid resuscitation in the burn patient. J Burn Care Res. 2010;31(4):616-623. PMID: 20489651.

[21] Küntscher MV, Germann G, Hartmann B. Correlations between cardiac output, stroke volume, central venous pressure, intra-abdominal pressure and total circulating blood volume in resuscitation of major burns. Resuscitation. 2006;70(1):37-43. PMID: 16759783.

[22] Chung KK, Wolf SE, Cancio LC, et al. Resuscitation of severely burned military casualties: fluid begets more fluid. J Trauma. 2009;67(2):231-237. PMID: 19667873.

[23] Datchinamourthy T, Kumar S, Maitra S, 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. 2025. PMID: 41197195.

[24] Navickis RJ, Greenhalgh DG, Wilkes MM. Albumin in Burn Shock Resuscitation: A Meta-Analysis of Controlled Clinical Studies. J Burn Care Res. 2016;37(3):e268-e278. PMID: 25426807.

[25] Albumin Reviewers (Alderson P, Bunn F, Li Wan Po A, et al). Human albumin solution for resuscitation and volume expansion in critically ill patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(10):CD001208. PMID: 21975732.

[26] Müller Dittrich MH, Brunow de Carvalho W, Lavado EL. Evaluation of the "Early" Use of Albumin in Children with Extensive Burns: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2016;17(6):e280-e286. PMID: 27077832.

[27] Melinyshyn A, Callum J, Jeschke MG, Cartotto R. Albumin supplementation for hypoalbuminemia following burns: unnecessary and costly! J Burn Care Res. 2013;34(1):8-17. PMID: 23128130.

[28] Alexander JW, Ogle CK, Stinnett JD, MacMillan BG. Fresh-frozen plasma vs. plasma protein derivative as adjunctive therapy for patients with massive thermal injury. J Trauma. 1979;19(11):710-713. PMID: 458893.

[29] Kahn SA, Huff ML, Taylor J, et al. Challenging Legacy Burn Resuscitation Paradigms with Fluid Restriction and Early Plasma. J Am Coll Surg. 2025. PMID: 39902941.

[30] Tanaka H, Matsuda T, Miyagantani Y, et al. Reduction of resuscitation fluid volumes in severely burned patients using ascorbic acid administration: a randomized, prospective study. Arch Surg. 2000;135(3):326-331. PMID: 10722036.

[31] Ghanayem H. Towards evidence based emergency medicine: Best BETs from the Manchester Royal Infirmary. BET 3: Vitamin C in severe burns. Emerg Med J. 2012;29(11):930-931. PMID: 23180299.

[32] Mayor S. EMA confirms that hydroxyethyl starch solutions should not be used in critically ill, sepsis, or burns patients. BMJ. 2013;347:f6385. PMID: 24126958.

[33] Béchir M, Puhan MA, Fasshauer M, et al. Early fluid resuscitation with hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 (6%) in severe burn injury: a randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Crit Care. 2013;17(6):R299. PMID: 24365167.

[34] Abdelmotaal AM, Abdelsalam AM, Bakry SAD, et al. Effect of Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) versus 5% albumin solution on intra-abdominal pressure in severe burn patients: A prospective randomized clinical trial. Burns. 2024. PMID: 37833147.

[35] Huang PP, Stucky FS, Dimick AR, et al. Hypertonic sodium resuscitation is associated with renal failure and death. Ann Surg. 1995;221(5):543-557. PMID: 7748036.

[36] Oda J, Ueyama M, Yamashita K, et al. Hypertonic lactated saline resuscitation reduces the risk of abdominal compartment syndrome in severely burned patients. J Trauma. 2006;60(1):64-71. PMID: 16456437.

[37] Shrestha R, Mehta K, Dahanayake D, et al. Feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of enteral vs intravenous resuscitation for adults with major burn injuries in Nepal. Burns. 2025. PMID: 39798346.

[38] Oda J, Yamashita K, Inoue T, et al. Resuscitation fluid volume and abdominal compartment syndrome in patients with major burns. Burns. 2006;32(2):151-154. PMID: 16451820.

[39] Ivy ME, Atweh NA, Palmer J, et al. Intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome in burn patients. J Trauma. 2000;49(3):387-391. PMID: 11003313.

[40] Zhang JP, Xiang F, Tong DL, et al. [Comparative study on the effect of restrictive fluid management strategy on the early pulmonary function of patients with severe burn]. Zhonghua Shao Shang Za Zhi. 2012;28(5):325-330. PMID: 22967969.

[41] Goodwin CW, Dorethy J, Lam V, et al. Randomized trial of efficacy of crystalloid and colloid resuscitation on hemodynamic response and lung water following thermal injury. Ann Surg. 1983;197(5):520-531. PMID: 6342554.

[42] Kraft R, Herndon DN, Branski LK, et al. Optimized fluid management improves outcomes of pediatric burn patients. J Surg Res. 2013;181(1):121-128. PMID: 22703982.

[43] Venter M, Rode H, Sive A, Visser M. Enteral resuscitation and early enteral feeding in children with major burns—effect on McFarlane response to stress. Burns. 2007;33(4):464-471. PMID: 17462827.

[44] Cancio LC, Chávez S, Alvarado-Ortega M, et al. Predicting increased fluid requirements during the resuscitation of thermally injured patients. J Trauma. 2004;56(2):404-413. PMID: 14960986.

[45] Barrow RE, Jeschke MG, Herndon DN. Early fluid resuscitation improves outcomes in severely burned children. Resuscitation. 2000;45(2):91-96. PMID: 10950316.

[46] Wolf SE, Rose JK, Desai MH, et al. Mortality determinants in massive pediatric burns. An analysis of 103 children with ≥80% TBSA burns (≥70% full-thickness). Ann Surg. 1997;225(5):554-565. PMID: 9193183.