Compared with other critical care patient populations, the burn-injured population constitutes a relatively small number of patients. Consequently, there are limited numbers of major burn centers in...

Compared with other critical care patient populations, the burn-injured population constitutes a relatively small number of patients. Consequently, there are limited numbers of major burn centers in the United States, and they are typically separated by great geographical distances. These facts greatly impact research investigations and the ability to generate rigorous guidelines and standards for evidence-based practice specifically pertinent to burn care. As a result, burn shock resuscitation has been an ongoing topic of extensive discussion and debate over the past few decades, with questions arising regarding the best practice for which types of fluids to administer, the role and timing of colloid use, and which specific monitoring end points to use. National trends in avoiding colloid use and increasing total amounts of fluids administered (deemed “fluid creep”) have been criticized as contributing to an increased incidence of intraabdominal hypertension (IAH), abdominal compartment syndrome and poor patient outcomes. However, definitions of IAH/abdominal compartment syndrome vary greatly in the literature, so no standardized recommendation for monitoring and treatment interventions could be made.