Hemodynamic Monitoring and Resuscitation Endpoints in Burns

Overview¶

Burn-shock resuscitation is the single most important early intervention in major burn care, and its execution is a monitoring problem as much as a volume problem ^[45]. The formula a clinician chooses estimates a starting rate; what is actually infused over the first 24-48 hours is determined by physiologic endpoints read at the bedside and acted on hour by hour ^[46,45]. This page treats those endpoints: what each one measures, how reliably it reflects perfusion, and what the evidence shows about titrating to it. The formula arithmetic itself, the choice of fluid, and the compartment-syndrome complication have their own pages.

The endpoints fall into three tiers. Urine output and mean arterial pressure are the bedside vital-sign tier that has guided burn resuscitation for decades ^[1]. Serum lactate and base deficit are the laboratory tier that opens a window onto tissue oxygen debt and carries prognostic weight ^[1,4]. Cardiac output, cardiac index, and volumetric preload measures from transpulmonary thermodilution, the pulmonary artery catheter, or central venous pressure are the hemodynamic tier that measures the circulation more directly but at the cost of invasiveness and, in several burn series, a tendency toward larger fluid volumes ^[14,12]. The central and still-unsettled question is whether any measure improves on urine-output-guided titration; the literature in this corpus has not shown that it does ^[5,30].

Pathophysiology of the Monitored Circulation¶

The circulation that these endpoints monitor is distinctive, which is why general intensive-care monitoring transfers imperfectly to burns ^[45]. Major burns produce a systemic response of plasma loss and cardiac dysfunction, so the early postburn state is one of falling cardiac output and contracted plasma volume before resuscitation takes hold ^[49]. In one canine model the mean arterial pressure, cardiac output, and plasma volume all fell significantly after burn while lung extravascular water and vascular permeability rose, the picture of combined hypovolemia and capillary leak that resuscitation is titrated against ^[50]. Postburn cardiac dysfunction has been documented in burn patients through cardiospecific serum markers and pulmonary artery catheter monitoring, establishing that the depressed early circulation is not purely a volume-deficit phenomenon ^[48].

This matters for interpreting cardiac-output endpoints. One invasive study found right ventricular function severely compromised, with increased end-diastolic volumes and depressed ejection fractions that improved with dobutamine and volume titrated to end-diastolic volume indices, without any change in arterial pressure, urine output, or oxygenation ^[22]. A more recent series reported that stroke volume and stroke volume variation were associated with survival in early burn shock ^[49]. The recurring theme is that a pressure or urine-output endpoint can look adequate while ventricular performance and tissue oxygenation are not.

Assessment: The Resuscitation Endpoints¶

Urine output¶

Urine output is the historical workhorse and remains the dominant endpoint. With a formula as the initial regimen, the infusion is monitored by urine output and titrated to keep it between 0.5 and 1.0 mL/kg/h ^[46]. Long-standing protocols target an hourly urine output of 30 to 50 mL in adults and 1-2 mL/kg/%burn in children, with the pediatric figure shifting to the adult level once a child reaches 30-50 kg ^[47]. In the ISBI/ABA practice survey, urine output was the major indicator of resuscitation success for 94.9% of survey respondents, while only 22.7% used any other monitor ^[37]. Its appeal is that it is continuous, cheap, and a direct readout of one organ's perfusion.

Its limitation is that it is a lagging and sometimes misleading signal. In a multicenter prospective trial, urine output lagged with respect to resuscitation, and a model of diastolic blood pressure, sex, burn size, and base deficit predicted oliguria with high accuracy, with diastolic pressure the load-bearing term ^[39]. In a thermodilution-monitored cohort, patients above and below the 0.5 mL/kg/h threshold did not differ in heart rate, mean arterial pressure, cardiac index, intrathoracic blood volume index, or lactate, so the urine-output cut point did not track the deeper hemodynamic state ^[3]. An early observational study found no correlation between invasively derived physiologic variables and either vital signs or urine output, and concluded that urine output and vital signs may not measure adequate resuscitation ^[2]. Urine output is the endpoint of record, but its failures are systematic rather than random.

Mean arterial pressure and central venous pressure¶

Mean arterial pressure has co-anchored the bedside tier with urine output. The traditional yardsticks for burn resuscitation have been a urinary output of 30 to 50 mL/h and a mean arterial pressure above 70 mm Hg ^[1]. A representative thermodilution protocol resuscitated to a mean arterial pressure above 65 mm Hg alongside the urine-output target ^[3]. The problem is sensitivity: in a tissue-oxygenation study there were no significant differences in mean arterial pressure, arterial pH, or lactate across the resuscitation period even as splanchnic and skin oxygenation indices deteriorated markedly ^[26]. Arterial pressure can be the last variable to move.

Central venous pressure has been used as a filling-pressure surrogate but performs poorly as a preload target in burns. Compared with central venous pressure, right ventricular end-diastolic volume gives a closer approximation of right ventricular preload, and in that same series mean pulmonary artery pressure, wedge pressure, right ventricular end-diastolic pressure, and urine output all correlated poorly with cardiac index ^[23]. Central venous pressure is easy to obtain but is a weak guide to volume status in the early burn circulation.

Serum lactate and base deficit¶

Lactate and base deficit add a window onto tissue oxygen debt that the vital-sign tier misses. In the foundational point-of-care study, serum lactate and base deficit correlated only weakly with the traditional resuscitation variables and on average remained abnormally high while urine output and mean arterial pressure were maintained at target, indicating that resuscitation judged adequate by the usual yardsticks was incomplete at the tissue level ^[1].

Their strongest role is prognostic rather than as a titration target. Serum lactate, but not base deficit, rapidly predicted survival after major burns in a regression analysis ^[6]. A separate cohort found that admission lactate was significantly higher, and the worst base deficit over the first 48 hours significantly lower, in patients who died, and the authors cautioned that resuscitation should not be withheld from a burn patient on the basis of any single lactate or base-deficit value ^[7]. Base deficit and the alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient measured during resuscitation each contributed independently, though modestly, to mortality after burn injury ^[11]. Lactate clearance carries the clearest signal: survival was 68% when resuscitation returned lactate to normal within 24 hours versus 32% when it stayed supranormal ^[4], and persistent lactic acidosis at 24 hours was independently associated with increased mortality and sepsis ^[5]. The discordant data on clearance as a target are addressed in the controversies section.

Cardiac output, cardiac index, and oxygen delivery¶

Direct measures of the circulation expose deficits the proxies miss. By echocardiography, patients were hypovolemic despite aggressive fluid and adequate urine output during the first day, and stroke volume index improved over the study period even without echocardiographic signs of myocardial depression ^[24]. The downstream variable is oxygen delivery: in a critically burned cohort, oxygen delivery and consumption indices were consistently higher in survivors and rose from admission to 72 hours, whereas non-survivors showed a significant decline across the same window, with 48 hours the documented prognostic turning point, leading the authors to relate the ability to raise oxygen delivery to better prognosis ^[25]. These data underlie the supranormal-endpoint hypothesis discussed under controversies; they show a correlation between higher delivery and survival without establishing that driving delivery upward with fluid changes outcome.

Invasive and minimally invasive cardiac-output monitors¶

When the bedside tier is judged insufficient, several devices measure cardiac output and preload more directly. The pulmonary artery (Swan-Ganz) catheter is the historical reference; early placement has been described as useful in patients with known myocardial dysfunction, age over 65, severe inhalation injury, or fluid requirements exceeding 150% of the formula prediction ^[21]. Transpulmonary thermodilution, the PiCCO system, is the less invasive successor: arterial thermodilution measures cardiac output as precisely as pulmonary-artery thermodilution and offers an attractive alternative to the pulmonary artery catheter in burns ^[15]. Its volumetric outputs are not uniformly reliable, however. Single transcardiopulmonary thermodilution is suitable for assessing cardiac output and derived parameters but not for estimating intrathoracic blood volume or extravascular lung water, which were too imprecise to guide volume therapy in burn shock ^[16]; the method is most dependable in low-to-normal cardiac-output states and less reliable when output is high ^[17]. Reproducibility of the derived indices is otherwise clinically sufficient even under the thermal instability of acute burns ^[18].

Protocols built on these measures show a consistent direction of effect that cuts against simple adoption. When resuscitation was guided by intrathoracic blood volume index rather than hourly urine output, central venous oxygen saturation was higher and multiple organ dysfunction was lower in the volumetric-target group ^[12], while invasive hemodynamic monitoring is associated with a significant increase in fluid administration ^[14]; the same comparison found that the two regimens differ in their effect on prooxidant status, mainly granulocyte function ^[13]. A randomized study of invasive monitoring resuscitated the thermodilution group to a volumetric intrathoracic-blood-volume preload endpoint ^[14]. A combined transpulmonary thermodilution and lactate protocol detected early hypovolemia not reflected by blood pressure or urine output, yet found that an adequate cardiac index and tissue perfusion can be achieved at below-normal preload, so the safe target is lower than the device's "normal" range ^[3]. Pulse-contour cardiac-output (PiCCO) cohorts have reported lower cardiac biomarkers, lower lactate, less positive fluid balance, and shorter ICU stay than routine monitoring, without a mortality difference, although both cohorts received more total fluid than the routine groups and the lower net balance reflected higher urine output rather than less volume given ^[19,20]. Esophageal Doppler and impedance methods offer noninvasive cardiac-output trends: the esophageal Doppler tracks changes well but reads a mean of 15% less than the pulmonary artery catheter for absolute cardiac output ^[27], and impedance cardiography reproduced the early postburn fall in cardiac output that invasive methods had reported ^[28]. Point-of-care ultrasound has more recently been used to individualize fluid therapy ^[29], and is grouped with thromboelastography among newer endpoint technologies whose efficacy in burns is not yet established ^[30].

Management: Titrating to the Endpoint¶

Titration: how endpoints drive the infusion¶

The discipline that separates resuscitation from a fixed dose is hour-by-hour adjustment of the infusion against the chosen endpoint. The formula sets the opening rate and the endpoint drives every subsequent change up or down ^[46,45]. The endpoint must therefore be bidirectional: the same urine-output target that calls for more fluid when output falls also calls for less when it runs high, and the failure to titrate down is the mechanism of fluid creep treated on the [[parkland-baxter-formula-volume-titration]] page.

Computer decision support and closed-loop titration¶

Because titration is labor-intensive and uneven, it has been automated. A computer decision-support system for burn resuscitation in the ICU lowered total crystalloid volume across 48 hours, reduced volume per kilogram and per percent burn, and increased the number of patients meeting hourly urine-output goals compared with clinician-directed titration ^[33]. Decision-assist and closed-loop algorithms adjust the infusion from continuous urine-output feedback ^[31]. In an ovine model, an automated closed-loop system held urine output in the target range with less hourly variation and fewer under-target hours than manual technician adjustment ^[32]. These systems act on the urine-output endpoint itself; they make titration more consistent rather than replacing the endpoint.

Vasopressors and salvage adjuncts¶

When pressure targets are not met by volume alone, vasopressors enter, though their use in burns is thinly described. Vasopressors may be required to support mean arterial pressure during acute burn resuscitation, and advanced age appears to be the most important determinant of their use ^[34]. Vasopressor use has been associated with increasing age, Baux score, burn size, more frequent dialysis, and increased mortality, which marks the sicker patient rather than establishing a causal harm ^[35]. In refractory burn shock, therapeutic plasma exchange has been used as salvage when total resuscitation volume exceeded 1.2 times the formula prediction; in response, mean arterial pressure rose 24%, urine output rose more than 400%, and lactate fell by nearly half, with admission lactate the only independent predictor of who would need it ^[36].

Complications and Pitfalls of Endpoint Monitoring¶

The endpoints carry failure modes that can mislead a titration. Oliguria lags the perfusion deficit it is meant to flag, so a falling urine output may report a problem that began hours earlier, and diastolic hypotension and base deficit precede it ^[39]. A more dangerous failure is the masked abdominal compartment syndrome: secondary abdominal compartment syndrome in severe burns is often unsuspected, can be rapidly fatal, and seriously compromises the reliability of urine output as a perfusion indicator, which is the rationale for continuous intravesical pressure monitoring both to detect it and to gauge whether urine output can still be trusted ^[40]. Tissue-level monitoring exposes the same gap from the other side: after 36 hours of resuscitation with adequate global indices of perfusion, splanchnic and cutaneous tissue oxygenation deteriorated significantly, so a normal bedside picture did not guarantee adequate regional perfusion ^[26]. The invasive monitors add their own burden through the catheters they require, which is part of why their volumetric targets have not displaced urine output.

Special Considerations¶

High-voltage electrical injury¶

Electrical injury changes the endpoint. Volume resuscitation of high-voltage electrical injury (>1000 V) is more complex than standard burn resuscitation because myonecrosis and secondary compartment syndromes produce rhabdomyolysis that compromises renal function and urine output ^[38]. Urine output remains the primary endpoint but the target rises to 1 mL/kg/h in adults, with lactate, base deficit, hemoglobin, creatinine, mean arterial pressure, and thermodilution measures acting as secondary endpoints ^[38].

Pediatric burns¶

Pediatric endpoint evidence is sparse. A systematic review found that most pediatric studies used urine output as the primary endpoint but set heterogeneous targets ranging from 0.5-1.0 to 2-3 mL/kg/h, that no study compared different urine-output targets head to head, and that the single study targeting invasive hemodynamic variables did not significantly affect outcome ^[42]. Long-standing practice maintains a higher per-kilogram urine output in children until they reach adult weight ^[47].

Obesity¶

Body habitus shifts the baseline laboratory endpoint. In a cohort stratified by body-mass index, base deficit on admission was highest in the morbidly obese group at both 24 and 48 hours, a reminder that the same base-deficit value carries a different meaning across body types and that resuscitation in these patients differs from the lean population ^[10].

Outcomes¶

Several endpoints are better understood as outcome markers than as titration targets. Admission lactate and the worst base deficit separate survivors from non-survivors across multiple cohorts ^[7,6]. Base deficit and the alveolar-arterial gradient each contributed independently, though modestly, to mortality after burn injury ^[11]. Lactate clearance to normal within 24 hours marks a roughly two-fold survival advantage over persistent supranormal lactate ^[4], and persistent lactic acidosis at 24 hours independently predicts death and sepsis ^[5]. The consistent message is that these laboratory endpoints earn their place by stratifying risk, even where their value as a moment-to-moment titration target is unproven.

Controversies and Evidence Gaps¶

Does any endpoint beat urine output on outcomes. This is the central unsettled question. The ideal marker for the endpoint of burn resuscitation is still not established ^[5], and a 2022 review concluded that the available endpoints have situational strengths and weaknesses with no single universal endpoint having emerged ^[30]. A 2024 review observed that fluid creep persists despite modern monitoring devices that fail to improve outcomes over hourly urine output ^[43]. The studies that target invasive variables tend to detect occult hypovolemia and improve surrogate markers such as central venous oxygen saturation and organ-dysfunction scores, but they do so alongside a significant increase in fluid administration ^[14] and have not demonstrated a survival benefit ^[3,12].

Invasive volumetric targets and over-resuscitation. Several burn series report that resuscitating to a normal intrathoracic blood volume index or other volumetric preload target delivers more fluid than urine-output guidance, and one protocol showed that an adequate cardiac index and tissue perfusion are reached at below-normal preload, implying the device's normal range overshoots ^[3,14]. The 2024 American Burn Association clinical practice guideline on burn shock resuscitation states that it does not recommend using transpulmonary thermodilution-derived variables to guide burn shock resuscitation, and that it is unable to make recommendations on high-dose vitamin C, fresh frozen plasma, early renal replacement therapy, or vasopressors as adjuncts ^[9]. One single-center analysis likewise argues that pursuing normalization of hemodynamic parameters in the shock stage leads to excessive resuscitation ^[41].

Lactate clearance as a target. Lactate clearance is a strong prognostic marker but a contested titration target. While clearance to normal within 24 hours tracks survival in several cohorts ^[4,5], one observational study found no relationship between first-24-hour lactate clearance and mortality and concluded that global lactate clearance does not behave in burns as it does in other injuries, even though monitoring lactate could still confirm adequate perfusion at below-normal preload ^[8]. The prognostic value of the admission lactate level is more consistent than the value of its trajectory as a goal.

The supranormal-oxygen-delivery hypothesis. Survivors run higher oxygen delivery and consumption than non-survivors ^[25], an association that historically motivated driving these variables to supranormal values. The burn literature in this corpus documents the association but not a trial showing that forcing supranormal delivery with additional fluid improves outcome, and the over-resuscitation concern weighs directly against it.

Endpoints in special and resource-limited settings. Pediatric endpoint targets are heterogeneous and untested against one another ^[42], and electrical injury requires a different urine-output target ^[38]. These gaps leave the simplest endpoint as the default precisely where monitoring is most constrained.

References¶

[1] Jeng JC, Lee K, Jablonski K, Jordan MH. "Serum lactate and base deficit suggest inadequate resuscitation of patients with burn injuries: application of a point-of-care laboratory instrument." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 1997. PMID: 9313119. ↩

[2] Dries DJ, Waxman K. "Adequate resuscitation of burn patients may not be measured by urine output and vital signs." Critical care medicine 1991. PMID: 1999092. ↩

[3] Sánchez M, García-de-Lorenzo A, Herrero E, Lopez T, Galvan B, Asensio M, et al. "A protocol for resuscitation of severe burn patients guided by transpulmonary thermodilution and lactate levels: a 3-year prospective cohort study." Critical care (London, England) 2013. PMID: 23947945. ↩

[4] Kamolz LP, Andel H, Schramm W, Meissl G, Herndon DN, Frey M. "Lactate: early predictor of morbidity and mortality in patients with severe burns." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2005. PMID: 16274931. ↩

[5] Muthukumar V, Arumugam PK, Narasimhan A, Kumar S, Sharma U, Sharma S, et al. "Blood Lactate And Lactate Clearance: Refined Biomarker And Prognostic Marker In Burn Resuscitation." Annals of burns and fire disasters 2020. PMID: 33708018. ↩

[6] Jeng JC, Jablonski K, Bridgeman A, Jordan MH. "Serum lactate, not base deficit, rapidly predicts survival after major burns." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2002. PMID: 11900940. ↩

[7] Cochran A, Edelman LS, Saffle JR, Morris SE. "The relationship of serum lactate and base deficit in burn patients to mortality." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2007. PMID: 17351438. ↩

[8] Herrero De Lucas E, Sanchez-Sanchez M, Cachafeiro Fuciños L, Agrifoglio Rotaeche A, Martínez Mendez JR, Flores Cabeza E, et al. "Lactate and lactate clearance in critically burned patients: usefulness and limitations as a resuscitation guide and as a prognostic factor." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2020. PMID: 32653255. ↩

[9] Cartotto R, Johnson LS, Savetamal A, Greenhalgh D, Kubasiak JC, Pham TN, 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. ↩

[10] Rae L, Pham TN, Carrougher G, Honari S, Gibran NS, Arnoldo BD, et al. "Differences in resuscitation in morbidly obese burn patients may contribute to high mortality." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2013. PMID: 23966116. ↩

[11] Cancio LC, Galvez E, Turner CE, Kypreos NG, Parker A, Holcomb JB. "Base deficit and alveolar-arterial gradient during resuscitation contribute independently but modestly to the prediction of mortality after burn injury." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2006. PMID: 16679895. ↩

[12] Csontos C, Foldi V, Fischer T, Bogar L. "Arterial thermodilution in burn patients suggests a more rapid fluid administration during early resuscitation." Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 2008. PMID: 18477075. ↩

[13] Foldi V, Csontos C, Bogar L, Roth E, Lantos J. "Effects of fluid resuscitation methods on burn trauma-induced oxidative stress." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2009. PMID: 19826270. ↩

[14] Holm C, Mayr M, Tegeler J, Hörbrand F, Henckel von Donnersmarck G, Mühlbauer W, et al. "A clinical randomized study on the effects of invasive monitoring on burn shock resuscitation." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2004. PMID: 15555792. ↩

[15] Holm C, Melcer B, Hörbrand F, Henckel von Donnersmarck G, Mühlbauer W. "Arterial thermodilution: an alternative to pulmonary artery catheter for cardiac output assessment in burn patients." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2001. PMID: 11226655. ↩

[16] Küntscher MV, Czermak C, Blome-Eberwein S, Dacho A, Germann G. "Transcardiopulmonary thermal dye versus single thermodilution methods for assessment of intrathoracic blood volume and extravascular lung water in major burn resuscitation." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 2003. PMID: 12792233. ↩

[17] Küntscher MV, Blome-Eberwein S, Pelzer M, Erdmann D, Germann G. "Transcardiopulmonary vs pulmonary arterial thermodilution methods for hemodynamic monitoring of burned patients." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 2002. PMID: 11803308. ↩

[18] Holm C, Mayr M, Hörbrand F, Tegeler J, Henckel von Donnersmarck G, Mühlbauer W, et al. "Reproducibility of transpulmonary thermodilution measurements in patients with burn shock and hypothermia." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 2005. PMID: 15879748. ↩

[19] Li Y, Zhang L, Liu J, Wu Y, Bai MM, Yu XP, et al. "[Effects of pulse contour cardiac output monitoring technology in amelioration of myocardial damage in fluid resuscitation of patients with large area burn in the early stage]." Zhonghua shao shang za zhi = Zhonghua shaoshang zazhi = Chinese journal of burns 2019. PMID: 31474036. ↩

[20] Jiang NN, Wang DY, Li F, Xie WG. "[Clinical significance of pulse contour cardiac output monitoring technology in guiding fluid replacement during shock stage of extensive burn]." Zhonghua shao shang za zhi = Zhonghua shaoshang zazhi = Chinese journal of burns 2019. PMID: 31280536. ↩

[21] Yowler CJ, Fratianne RB. "Current status of burn resuscitation." Clinics in plastic surgery 2000. PMID: 10665352. ↩

[22] Schultz AM, Werba A, Wolrab C. "Early cardiorespiratory patterns in severely burned patients with concomitant inhalation injury." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 1997. PMID: 9426912. ↩

[23] Martyn JA, Snider MT, Farago LF, Burke JF. "Thermodilution right ventricular volume: a novel and better predictor of volume replacement in acute thermal injury." The Journal of trauma 1981. PMID: 7265333. ↩

[24] Papp A, Uusaro A, Parviainen I, Hartikainen J, Ruokonen E. "Myocardial function and haemodynamics in extensive burn trauma: evaluation by clinical signs, invasive monitoring, echocardiography and cytokine concentrations. A prospective clinical study." Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 2003. PMID: 14616324. ↩

[25] Gueugniaud PY, Bertin-Maghit M, Hirschauer C, Bouchard C, Vilasco B, Petit P. "In the early stage of major burns, is there a correlation between survival, interleukin-6 levels and oxygen delivery and consumption?" Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 1997. PMID: 9426913. ↩

[26] Venkatesh B, Meacher R, Muller MJ, Morgan TJ, Fraser J. "Monitoring tissue oxygenation during resuscitation of major burns." The Journal of trauma 2001. PMID: 11265028. ↩

[27] Kim K, Kwok I, Chang H, Han T. "Comparison of cardiac outputs of major burn patients undergoing extensive early escharectomy: esophageal Doppler monitor versus thermodilution pulmonary artery catheter." The Journal of trauma 2004. PMID: 15580025. ↩

[28] Griffths RW, Philpot ME, Chapman BJ, Munday KA. "Impedance cardiography: non-invasive cardiac output measurement after burn injury." International journal of tissue reactions 1981. PMID: 7287057. ↩

[29] Boehm D, Menke H. "A History of Fluid Management-From 'One Size Fits All' to an Individualized Fluid Therapy in Burn Resuscitation." Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) 2021. PMID: 33672128. ↩

[30] Belaunzaran M, Raslan S, Ali A, Newsome K, McKenney M, Elkbuli A. "Utilization and Efficacy of Resuscitation Endpoints in Trauma and Burn Patients: A Review Article." The American surgeon 2022. PMID: 34761698. ↩

[31] Salinas J, Drew G, Gallagher J, Cancio LC, Wolf SE, Wade CE, et al. "Closed-loop and decision-assist resuscitation of burn patients." The Journal of trauma 2008. PMID: 18385584. ↩

[32] Hoskins SL, Elgjo GI, Lu J, Ying H, Grady JJ, Herndon DN, et al. "Closed-loop resuscitation of burn shock." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2006. PMID: 16679909. ↩

[33] Salinas J, Chung KK, Mann EA, Cancio LC, Kramer GC, Serio-Melvin ML, et al. "Computerized decision support system improves fluid resuscitation following severe burns: an original study." Critical care medicine 2011. PMID: 21532472. ↩

[34] Adibfar A, Camacho F, Rogers AD, Cartotto R. "The use of vasopressors during acute burn resuscitation." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2021. PMID: 33293152. ↩

[35] Knappskog K, Andersen NG, Guttormsen AB, Onarheim H, Almeland SK, Beitland S. "Vasoactive and/or inotropic drugs in initial resuscitation of burn injuries: A systematic review." Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 2022. PMID: 35583993. ↩

[36] Neff LP, Allman JM, Holmes JH. "The use of theraputic plasma exchange (TPE) in the setting of refractory burn shock." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2010. PMID: 19540673. ↩

[37] Greenhalgh DG. "Burn resuscitation: the results of the ISBI/ABA survey." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2010. PMID: 20018451. ↩

[38] Culnan DM, Farner K, Bitz GH, Capek KD, Tu Y, Jimenez C, et al. "Volume Resuscitation in Patients With High-Voltage Electrical Injuries." Annals of plastic surgery 2018. PMID: 29461290. ↩

[39] McHargue C, Aden J, Pham TN, Salinas J, Rizzo JA. "Precursors to oliguria during major burn resuscitation: An analysis of a prospective observational trial at 5 major US burn centers." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2024. PMID: 38548572. ↩

[40] Azzopardi EA, McWilliams B, Iyer S, Whitaker IS. "Fluid resuscitation in adults with severe burns at risk of secondary abdominal compartment syndrome--an evidence based systematic review." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2009. PMID: 19477594. ↩

[41] Wang GY. "[Application and evaluation of hemodynamic monitoring in shock stage of extensive burns]." Zhonghua shao shang za zhi = Zhonghua shaoshang zazhi = Chinese journal of burns 2021. PMID: 33618449. ↩

[42] Stutchfield C, Davies A, Young A. "Fluid resuscitation in paediatric burns: how do we get it right? A systematic review of the evidence." Archives of disease in childhood 2019. PMID: 30262511. ↩

[43] Greenhalgh DG. "Current Thoughts on Burn Resuscitation." Advances in surgery 2024. PMID: 39089770. ↩

[44] Caruso DM, Matthews MR. "Monitoring End Points of Burn Resuscitation." Critical care clinics 2016. PMID: 27600124.

[45] Latenser BA. "Critical care of the burn patient: the first 48 hours." Critical care medicine 2009. PMID: 19707133. ↩

[46] Dai NT, Chen TM, Cheng TY, Chen SL, Chen SG, Chou GH, 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. ↩

[47] Warden GD. "Burn shock resuscitation." World journal of surgery 1992. PMID: 1290260. ↩

[48] Murphy JT, Horton JW, Purdue GF, Hunt JL. "Cardiovascular effect of 7.5% sodium chloride-dextran infusion after thermal injury." Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill. : 1960) 1999. PMID: 10522853. ↩

[49] Kruse M, Plettig P, Josuttis D, Guembel D, Guethoff C, Hartmann B, et al. "Stroke Volume and Stroke Volume Variation, but not Cardiac Index Is Associated With Survival of Majorly Burned Patients in Early Burn Shock." Journal of intensive care medicine 2025. PMID: 39090977. ↩

[50] Hu Q, Du MH, Hu S, Chai JK, Luo HM, Hu XH, et al. "PNU-282987 improves the hemodynamic parameters by alleviating vasopermeability and tissue edema in dogs subjected to a lethal burns shock." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2014. PMID: 23877136. ↩