Literature DB >> 23653181

Changes in the mean systemic filling pressure during a fluid challenge in postsurgical intensive care patients.

Maurizio Cecconi1, Hollmann D Aya, Martin Geisen, Claudia Ebm, Nick Fletcher, R Michael Grounds, Andrew Rhodes.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The difference between mean systemic filling (Pmsf) and central venous pressure (CVP) is the venous return gradient (dVR). The aim of this study is to assess the significance of the Pmsf analogue (Pmsa) and the dVR during a fluid challenge.
METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study in postsurgical patients. Patients were monitored with a central venous catheter, a LiDCO™plus and the Navigator™. A 250-ml intravenous fluid challenge was given over 5 min. A positive response to the fluid challenge was defined as either a stroke volume (SV) or cardiac output increase of greater than 10 %.
RESULTS: A total of 101 fluid challenges were observed in 39 patients. In 43 events (42.6 %) the SV and CO increased by more than 10 %. Pmsa increased similarly during a fluid challenge in responders and non-responders (3.1 ± 1.9 vs. 3.1 ± 1.8, p = 0.9), whereas the dVR increased in responders (1.16 ± 0.8 vs. 0.2 ± 1, p < 0.001) as among non-responders CVP increased along with Pmsa (2.9 ± 1.7 vs. 3.1 ± 1.8, p = 0.15). Resistance to venous return did not change immediately after a fluid challenge. Heart performance (Eh) decreased significantly among non-responders (0.41 ± 0.15 vs. 0.34 ± 0.13, p < 0.001) whereas among responders it did not change when compared with baseline value (0.35 ± 0.15 vs. 0.34 ± 0.12, p = 0.15).
CONCLUSIONS: The changes in Pmsa and dVR measured at the bedside during a fluid challenge are consistent with the cardiovascular model described by Guyton.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23653181     DOI: 10.1007/s00134-013-2928-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Intensive Care Med        ISSN: 0342-4642            Impact factor:   17.440


  22 in total

1.  How to use central venous pressure measurements.

Authors:  Sheldon Magder
Journal:  Curr Opin Crit Care       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.687

2.  Comparison of two fluid-management strategies in acute lung injury.

Authors:  Herbert P Wiedemann; Arthur P Wheeler; Gordon R Bernard; B Taylor Thompson; Douglas Hayden; Ben deBoisblanc; Alfred F Connors; R Duncan Hite; Andrea L Harabin
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-05-21       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 3.  Fluid challenge revisited.

Authors:  Jean-Louis Vincent; Max Harry Weil
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 7.598

4.  Error in central venous pressure measurement.

Authors:  Katie K Figg; Edward C Nemergut
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 5.108

5.  Therapeutic control of the circulation.

Authors:  William Geoffrey Parkin; Mark Stephen Leaning
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2008-11-12       Impact factor: 2.502

6.  Regulation of cardiac output.

Authors:  A C Guyton
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1968 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 7.892

7.  Use of a mean systemic filling pressure analogue during the closed-loop control of fluid replacement in continuous hemodiafiltration.

Authors:  G Parkin; C Wright; R Bellomo; N Boyce
Journal:  J Crit Care       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 3.425

8.  Clinical outcome of severe head injury using three different ICP and CPP protocol-driven therapies.

Authors:  Sheng-Jean Huang; Wei-Chen Hong; Yin-Yi Han; Yuan-Sen Chen; Chung-Shi Wen; Yi-Shin Tsai; Yong-Kwang Tu
Journal:  J Clin Neurosci       Date:  2006-09-05       Impact factor: 1.961

9.  Pulmonary artery occlusion pressure and central venous pressure fail to predict ventricular filling volume, cardiac performance, or the response to volume infusion in normal subjects.

Authors:  Anand Kumar; Ramon Anel; Eugene Bunnell; Kalim Habet; Sergio Zanotti; Stephanie Marshall; Alex Neumann; Amjad Ali; Mary Cheang; Clifford Kavinsky; Joseph E Parrillo
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 7.598

10.  A positive fluid balance is associated with a worse outcome in patients with acute renal failure.

Authors:  Didier Payen; Anne Cornélie de Pont; Yasser Sakr; Claudia Spies; Konrad Reinhart; Jean Louis Vincent
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2008-06-04       Impact factor: 9.097

View more
  34 in total

1.  Mean systemic pressure: we can now estimate it, but for what?

Authors:  Jean-Louis Teboul
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Mean systemic filling pressure: we can now estimate it, but for what? Response to comment by Parkin.

Authors:  Jean-Louis Teboul
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2013-09-27       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Re: Mean systemic filling pressure: we can now estimate it but for what?

Authors:  Geoffrey Parkin
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2013-09-11       Impact factor: 17.440

4.  Predicting the determinants of volume responsiveness.

Authors:  Xavier Monnet; Michael R Pinsky
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 17.440

5.  Fluid resuscitation in ICU patients: quo vadis?

Authors:  Anders Perner; Antoine Vieillard-Baron; Jan Bakker
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2015-06-14       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  Can one size fit all? The fine line between fluid overload and hypovolemia.

Authors:  Thierry Boulain; Maurizio Cecconi
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2015-02-06       Impact factor: 17.440

7.  Fluid administration for acute circulatory dysfunction using basic monitoring: narrative review and expert panel recommendations from an ESICM task force.

Authors:  Maurizio Cecconi; Glenn Hernandez; Martin Dunser; Massimo Antonelli; Tim Baker; Jan Bakker; Jacques Duranteau; Sharon Einav; A B Johan Groeneveld; Tim Harris; Sameer Jog; Flavia R Machado; Mervyn Mer; M Ignacio Monge García; Sheila Nainan Myatra; Anders Perner; Jean-Louis Teboul; Jean-Louis Vincent; Daniel De Backer
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2018-11-19       Impact factor: 17.440

8.  Applying mean systemic filling pressure to assess the response to fluid boluses in cardiac post-surgical patients.

Authors:  Kapil Gupta; Soren Sondergaard; Geoffrey Parkin; Mark Leaning; Anders Aneman
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 9.  Understanding venous return.

Authors:  David A Berlin; Jan Bakker
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2014-06-26       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 10.  Systematic review including re-analyses of 1148 individual data sets of central venous pressure as a predictor of fluid responsiveness.

Authors:  T G Eskesen; M Wetterslev; A Perner
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 17.440

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.