Literature DB >> 35729632

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

Antonio Messina1,2, Lorenzo Calabrò3, Luca Pugliese3, Aulona Lulja3, Alexandra Sopuch3, Daniela Rosalba4, Emanuela Morenghi3,5, Glenn Hernandez6, Xavier Monnet7,8,9, Maurizio Cecconi3,5.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Fluid challenges are widely adopted in critically ill patients to reverse haemodynamic instability. We reviewed the literature to appraise fluid challenge characteristics in intensive care unit (ICU) patients receiving haemodynamic monitoring and considered two decades: 2000-2010 and 2011-2021.
METHODS: We assessed research studies and collected data regarding study setting, patient population, fluid challenge characteristics, and monitoring. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane search engines were used. A fluid challenge was defined as an infusion of a definite quantity of fluid (expressed as a volume in mL or ml/kg) in a fixed time (expressed in minutes), whose outcome was defined as a change in predefined haemodynamic variables above a predetermined threshold.
RESULTS: We included 124 studies, 32 (25.8%) published in 2000-2010 and 92 (74.2%) in 2011-2021, overall enrolling 6,086 patients, who presented sepsis/septic shock in 50.6% of cases. The fluid challenge usually consisted of 500 mL (76.6%) of crystalloids (56.6%) infused with a rate of 25 mL/min. Fluid responsiveness was usually defined by a cardiac output/index (CO/CI) increase ≥ 15% (70.9%). The infusion time was quicker (15 min vs 30 min), and crystalloids were more frequent in the 2011-2021 compared to the 2000-2010 period.
CONCLUSIONS: In the literature, fluid challenges are usually performed by infusing 500 mL of crystalloids bolus in less than 20 min. A positive fluid challenge response, reported in 52% of ICU patients, is generally defined by a CO/CI increase ≥ 15%. Compared to the 2000-2010 decade, in 2011-2021 the infusion time of the fluid challenge was shorter, and crystalloids were more frequently used.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Critically ill patients; Fluid bolus; Fluid challenge; Fluid responsiveness; Fluids

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35729632      PMCID: PMC9210670          DOI: 10.1186/s13054-022-04056-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care        ISSN: 1364-8535            Impact factor:   19.334


  141 in total

1.  Efficacy of functional hemodynamic parameters in predicting fluid responsiveness with pulse power analysis in surgical patients.

Authors:  M Cecconi; G Monti; M A Hamilton; M Puntis; D Dawson; M L Tuccillo; G Della Rocca; R M Grounds; A Rhodes
Journal:  Minerva Anestesiol       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 3.051

2.  Evaluation of stroke volume variations obtained with the pressure recording analytic method.

Authors:  Matthieu Biais; Vincent Cottenceau; Laurent Stecken; Maylis Jean; Laetitia Ottolenghi; Stéphanie Roullet; Alice Quinart; François Sztark
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 7.598

3.  The use of pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation in spontaneously breathing patients to assess dynamic arterial elastance and to predict arterial pressure response to fluid administration.

Authors:  Maurizio Cecconi; M Ignacio Monge García; Manuel Gracia Romero; Johannes Mellinghoff; Francesca Caliandro; Robert Michael Grounds; Andrew Rhodes
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 5.108

4.  Esophageal Doppler monitoring predicts fluid responsiveness in critically ill ventilated patients.

Authors:  Xavier Monnet; Mario Rienzo; David Osman; Nadia Anguel; Christian Richard; Michael R Pinsky; Jean-Louis Teboul
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2005-07-30       Impact factor: 17.440

5.  Passive leg raising is predictive of fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients with severe sepsis or acute pancreatitis.

Authors:  Sébastien Préau; Fabienne Saulnier; Florent Dewavrin; Alain Durocher; Jean-Luc Chagnon
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 7.598

6.  Multivariable haemodynamic approach to predict the fluid challenge response: A multicentre cohort study.

Authors:  Antonio Messina; Salvatore M Romano; Aycan Ozdemirkan; Paolo Persona; Riccardo Tarquini; Gianmaria Cammarota; Stefano Romagnoli; Francesco Della Corte; Victoria Bennett; Manuel I Monge García; Maurizio Cecconi; Didier Payen
Journal:  Eur J Anaesthesiol       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 4.330

7.  Pleth variability index is a weak predictor of fluid responsiveness in patients receiving norepinephrine.

Authors:  X Monnet; L Guérin; M Jozwiak; A Bataille; F Julien; C Richard; J-L Teboul
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2012-10-26       Impact factor: 9.166

8.  Sigh maneuver to enhance assessment of fluid responsiveness during pressure support ventilation.

Authors:  Antonio Messina; Davide Colombo; Federico Lorenzo Barra; Gianmaria Cammarota; Giacomo De Mattei; Federico Longhini; Stefano Romagnoli; Francesco DellaCorte; Daniel De Backer; Maurizio Cecconi; Paolo Navalesi
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2019-01-28       Impact factor: 9.097

9.  Functional hemodynamic tests: a systematic review and a metanalysis on the reliability of the end-expiratory occlusion test and of the mini-fluid challenge in predicting fluid responsiveness.

Authors:  Antonio Messina; Antonio Dell'Anna; Marta Baggiani; Flavia Torrini; Gian Marco Maresca; Victoria Bennett; Laura Saderi; Giovanni Sotgiu; Massimo Antonelli; Maurizio Cecconi
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2019-07-29       Impact factor: 9.097

10.  Comparison of the Efficacy of Different Arterial Waveform-derived Variables (Pulse Pressure Variation, Stroke Volume Variation, Systolic Pressure Variation) for Fluid Responsiveness in Hemodynamically Unstable Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Patients.

Authors:  Nitish Kumar; Deepak Malviya; Soumya S Nath; Shivani Rastogi; Vishal Upadhyay
Journal:  Indian J Crit Care Med       Date:  2021-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.