Literature DB >> 30122506

Predicting fluid responsiveness: A review of literature and a guide for the clinician.

Bilal A Jalil1, Rodrigo Cavallazzi2.   

Abstract

Volume resuscitation is of utmost importance in the treatment of shock. It is imperative that this resuscitation be guided using a reliable method of ascertaining volume status to avoid the ill-effects of hypovolemia while also avoiding those of over-resuscitation. There are numerous tools and methods available in this era to aid the bedside physician in guiding volume resuscitation, many of which will be described in this review of literature. The methods to assess preload responsiveness are broadly divided into static and dynamic measurements. Static measurements involve 'snapshot' estimations of preload. Dynamic measurements rely on fluctuations in heart-lung interactions or a simulated volume challenge to predict whether increasing preload by volume loading will be beneficial. Dynamic measurements are favored over static measurements, however the conditions to be met for most dynamic measurements to be valid leave these methods to be used reliably in a very discrete critically-ill population. This issue is overcome by utilizing maneuvers that have been developed to assess fluid responsiveness that liberalize the conditions required for most dynamic measurements, such as passive leg raising, end expiratory occlusion, and mini-fluid boluses. This review of literature highlights the differences between static and dynamic measurements of fluid responsiveness, and proposes a guide to choosing the most reliable methods of ascertaining volume responsiveness individualized to each patient.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Fluid responsiveness; Hemodynamics; Resuscitation; Shock

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30122506     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2018.08.037

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Emerg Med        ISSN: 0735-6757            Impact factor:   2.469


  5 in total

1.  Management of circulatory shock and hypotension.

Authors:  Kay Choong See
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2022-05       Impact factor: 3.331

2.  Shock Management Without Formal Fluid Responsiveness Assessment: A Retrospective Analysis of Fluid Responsiveness and Its Outcomes.

Authors:  Andrew Hong; Nicholas Villano; William Toppen; Montoya Elizabeth Aquije; David Berlin; Maxime Cannesson; Igor Barjaktarevic
Journal:  J Acute Med       Date:  2021-12-01

3.  Up-regulation of circRNA_0068481 promotes right ventricular hypertrophy in PAH patients via regulating miR-646/miR-570/miR-885.

Authors:  Hong-Mei Guo; Zi-Peng Liu
Journal:  J Cell Mol Med       Date:  2021-03-12       Impact factor: 5.310

4.  Automated Assessment of Cardiovascular Sufficiency Using Non-Invasive Physiological Data.

Authors:  Xinyu Li; Michael R Pinsky; Artur Dubrawski
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-28       Impact factor: 3.576

5.  A Two Parameters for the Evaluation of Hypovolemia in Patients with Septic Shock: Inferior Vena Cava Collapsibility Index (IVCCI), Delta Cardiac Output.

Authors:  Cem Kıvılcım Kaçar; Osman Uzundere; Abdulkadir Yektaş
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2019-10-29
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.