Literature DB >> 27655325

Hemodynamic Effect of Different Doses of Fluids for a Fluid Challenge: A Quasi-Randomized Controlled Study.

Hollmann D Aya1, Andrew Rhodes, Irina Chis Ster, Nick Fletcher, R Michael Grounds, Maurizio Cecconi.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are to determine what is the minimal volume required to perform an effective fluid challenge and to investigate how different doses of IV fluids in an fluid challenge affect the changes in cardiac output and the proportion of responders and nonresponders.
DESIGN: Quasi-randomized controlled trial.
SETTING: Cardiothoracic ICU, tertiary university hospital. PATIENTS: Eighty postcardiac surgery patients. INTERVENTION: IV infusion of 1, 2, 3, or 4 mL/Kg (body weight) of crystalloid over 5 minutes.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Mean systemic filling pressure measured using the transient stop-flow arm arterial-venous equilibrium pressure, arterial and central venous pressure, cardiac output (LiDCOplus; LiDCO, Cambridge, United Kingdom), and heart rate. The groups were well matched with respect to demographic and baseline physiologic variables. The proportion of responders increased from 20% in the group of 1 mL/kg to 65% in the group of 4 mL/kg (p = 0.04). The predicted minimal volume required for an fluid challenge was between 321 and 509 mL. Only 4 mL/Kg increases transient stop-flow arm arterial-venous equilibrium pressure beyond the limits of precision and was significantly associated with a positive response (odds ratio, 7.73; 95% CI, 1.78-31.04).
CONCLUSION: The doses of fluids used for an fluid challenge modify the proportions of responders in postoperative patients. A dose of 4 mL/Kg increases transient stop-flow arm arterial-venous equilibrium pressure and reliably detects responders and nonresponders.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27655325     DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002067

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  22 in total

Review 1.  Challenges in the management of septic shock: a narrative review.

Authors:  Daniel De Backer; Maurizio Cecconi; Jeffrey Lipman; Flavia Machado; Sheila Nainan Myatra; Marlies Ostermann; Anders Perner; Jean-Louis Teboul; Jean-Louis Vincent; Keith R Walley
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2019-02-11       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  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

3.  Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021.

Authors:  Laura Evans; Andrew Rhodes; Waleed Alhazzani; Massimo Antonelli; Craig M Coopersmith; Craig French; Flávia R Machado; Lauralyn Mcintyre; Marlies Ostermann; Hallie C Prescott; Christa Schorr; Steven Simpson; W Joost Wiersinga; Fayez Alshamsi; Derek C Angus; Yaseen Arabi; Luciano Azevedo; Richard Beale; Gregory Beilman; Emilie Belley-Cote; Lisa Burry; Maurizio Cecconi; John Centofanti; Angel Coz Yataco; Jan De Waele; R Phillip Dellinger; Kent Doi; Bin Du; Elisa Estenssoro; Ricard Ferrer; Charles Gomersall; Carol Hodgson; Morten Hylander Møller; Theodore Iwashyna; Shevin Jacob; Ruth Kleinpell; Michael Klompas; Younsuck Koh; Anand Kumar; Arthur Kwizera; Suzana Lobo; Henry Masur; Steven McGloughlin; Sangeeta Mehta; Yatin Mehta; Mervyn Mer; Mark Nunnally; Simon Oczkowski; Tiffany Osborn; Elizabeth Papathanassoglou; Anders Perner; Michael Puskarich; Jason Roberts; William Schweickert; Maureen Seckel; Jonathan Sevransky; Charles L Sprung; Tobias Welte; Janice Zimmerman; Mitchell Levy
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2021-10-02       Impact factor: 17.440

4.  Pressure response to fluid challenge administration in hypotensive surgical patients: a post-hoc pharmacodynamic analysis of five datasets.

Authors:  Antonio Messina; Davide Colombo; Giulia Lionetti; Lorenzo Calabrò; Katerina Negri; Chiara Robba; Gianmaria Cammarota; Elena Costantini; Maurizio Cecconi
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2022-10-05       Impact factor: 1.977

Review 5.  Fluid challenge in critically ill patients receiving haemodynamic monitoring: a systematic review and comparison of two decades.

Authors:  Antonio Messina; Lorenzo Calabrò; Luca Pugliese; Aulona Lulja; Alexandra Sopuch; Daniela Rosalba; Emanuela Morenghi; Glenn Hernandez; Xavier Monnet; Maurizio Cecconi
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 19.334

Review 6.  Prediction of fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients.

Authors:  Mathieu Jozwiak; Xavier Monnet; Jean-Louis Teboul
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-09

7.  N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide for predicting fluid challenge in patients with septic shock.

Authors:  Hui-Bin Huang; Biao Xu; Guang-Yun Liu; Bin Du
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-06

Review 8.  Prediction of fluid responsiveness: an update.

Authors:  Xavier Monnet; Paul E Marik; Jean-Louis Teboul
Journal:  Ann Intensive Care       Date:  2016-11-17       Impact factor: 6.925

Review 9.  What is the impact of the fluid challenge technique on diagnosis of fluid responsiveness? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Laura Toscani; Hollmann D Aya; Dimitra Antonakaki; Davide Bastoni; Ximena Watson; Nish Arulkumaran; Andrew Rhodes; Maurizio Cecconi
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 10.  Perioperative fluid management: From physiology to improving clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Victoria A Bennett; Maurizio Cecconi
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2017-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.