PURPOSE: In critically ill pediatric patients, fluid overload (FO) >10% has been identified as a threshold for possible interventions, including initiation of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). However, multiple definitions have been reported, and there remains no consensus method for FO calculation. The goal of this study was to compare different methods of FO determination and to assess their relative value in predicting outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective single-center review of 21 pediatric stem cell transplant patients (PSCT) that required CRRT from 2004 to 2009. We compared eight definitions (4 weight-based and 4 fluid-balance based) that varied by baseline weights. Outcome measures were pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) mortality and pediatric logistic organ dysfunction (PELOD) scores. RESULTS: The number of patients identified as having >10% FO varied significantly according to the definition used, from 14 to 48% (p = 0.002). Significant intra-subject variability was observed; the median difference between individual minimum and maximum %FO scores was 11.4% (IQR 6.8, 17.1%). %FO was not significantly associated with PICU mortality, but five of eight FO definitions were predictive of higher subsequent PELOD scores. CONCLUSION: Our study is one of the first to compare different FO definitions and the impact on predicting outcomes. Our findings suggest that depending on the FO definition used, there is significant variability in the calculated %FO in PSCT patients, and this has important implications for clinical decision-making. Further studies are necessary to determine an optimal FO definition that is clinically relevant and predictive of important outcomes.
PURPOSE: In critically ill pediatric patients, fluid overload (FO) >10% has been identified as a threshold for possible interventions, including initiation of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). However, multiple definitions have been reported, and there remains no consensus method for FO calculation. The goal of this study was to compare different methods of FO determination and to assess their relative value in predicting outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective single-center review of 21 pediatric stem cell transplant patients (PSCT) that required CRRT from 2004 to 2009. We compared eight definitions (4 weight-based and 4 fluid-balance based) that varied by baseline weights. Outcome measures were pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) mortality and pediatric logistic organ dysfunction (PELOD) scores. RESULTS: The number of patients identified as having >10% FO varied significantly according to the definition used, from 14 to 48% (p = 0.002). Significant intra-subject variability was observed; the median difference between individual minimum and maximum %FO scores was 11.4% (IQR 6.8, 17.1%). %FO was not significantly associated with PICU mortality, but five of eight FO definitions were predictive of higher subsequent PELOD scores. CONCLUSION: Our study is one of the first to compare different FO definitions and the impact on predicting outcomes. Our findings suggest that depending on the FO definition used, there is significant variability in the calculated %FO in PSCT patients, and this has important implications for clinical decision-making. Further studies are necessary to determine an optimal FO definition that is clinically relevant and predictive of important outcomes.
Authors: Pedro Celiny R Garcia; Pablo Eulmesekian; Ricardo G Branco; Augusto Perez; Ana Sffogia; Lorenzo Olivero; Jefferson P Piva; Robert C Tasker Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2009-04-10 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: David T Selewski; Timothy T Cornell; Rebecca M Lombel; Neal B Blatt; Yong Y Han; Theresa Mottes; Mallika Kommareddi; David B Kershaw; Thomas P Shanley; Michael Heung Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-04-30 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Surender Rajasekaran; Deborah P Jones; Yvonne Avent; Michele L Shaffer; Lama Elbahlawan; Nan Henderson; Raymond C Barfield; R Ray Morrison; Robert F Tamburro Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Stéphane Leteurtre; Alain Martinot; Alain Duhamel; François Proulx; Bruno Grandbastien; Jacques Cotting; Ronald Gottesman; Ari Joffe; Jurg Pfenninger; Philippe Hubert; Jacques Lacroix; Francis Leclerc Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-07-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Francisco X Flores; Patrick D Brophy; Jordan M Symons; James D Fortenberry; Annabelle N Chua; Steven R Alexander; John D Mahan; Timothy E Bunchman; Douglas Blowey; Michael J G Somers; Michelle Baum; Richard Hackbarth; Deepa Chand; Kevin McBryde; Mark Benfield; Stuart L Goldstein Journal: Pediatr Nephrol Date: 2008-01-29 Impact factor: 3.714
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Marc Bonten; Maurizio Cecconi; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; J R Curtis; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Salvatore M Maggiore; Jordi Mancebo; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Patricia Rocco; Jean-François Timsit; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-01-22 Impact factor: 17.440