In patients with acute circulatory failure, fluid administration represents a first-line therapeutic intervention for improving cardiac output. However, only approximately 50% of patients respond to fluid infusion with a significant increase in cardiac output, defined as fluid responsiveness. Additionally, excessive volume expansion and associated hyperhydration have been shown to increase morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. Thus, except for cases of obvious hypovolaemia, fluid responsiveness should be routinely tested prior to fluid administration. Static markers of cardiac preload, such as central venous pressure or pulmonary artery wedge pressure, have been shown to be poor predictors of fluid responsiveness despite their widespread use to guide fluid therapy. Dynamic tests including parameters of aortic blood flow or respiratory variability of inferior vena cava diameter provide much higher diagnostic accuracy. Nevertheless, they are also burdened with several significant limitations, reducing the reliability, or even precluding their use in many clinical scenarios. This non-systematic narrative review aims to provide an update on the novel, less employed dynamic tests of fluid responsiveness evaluation in critically ill patients.
We collected a multi-centric retrospective dataset of patients (N = 213) who were admitted to ten hospitals in Czech Republic and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the early phases of the pandemic in March—October 2020. The dataset contains baseline patient characteristics, breathing support required, pharmacological treatment received and multiple markers on daily resolution. Patients in the dataset were treated with hydroxychloroquine (N = 108), azithromycin (N = 72), favipiravir (N = 9), convalescent plasma (N = 7), dexamethasone (N = 4) and remdesivir (N = 3), often in combination. To explore association between treatments and patient outcomes we performed multiverse analysis, observing how the conclusions change between defensible choices of statistical model, predictors included in the model and other analytical degrees of freedom. Weak evidence to constrain the potential efficacy of azithromycin and favipiravir can be extracted from the data. Additionally, we performed external validation of several proposed prognostic models for Covid-19 severity showing that they mostly perform unsatisfactorily on our dataset.
End-expiratory occlusion (EEO) and end-inspiratory occlusion (EIO) tests have been successfully used to predict fluid responsiveness in various settings using calibrated pulse contour analysis and echocardiography. The aim of this study was to test if respiratory occlusion tests predicted fluid responsiveness reliably in cardiac surgical patients with protective ventilation. This single-centre, prospective study, included 57 ventilated patients after elective coronary artery bypass grafting who were indicated for fluid expansion. Baseline echocardiographic measurements were obtained and patients with significant cardiac pathology were excluded. Cardiac index (CI), stroke volume and stroke volume variation were recorded using uncalibrated pulse contour analysis at baseline, after performing EEO and EIO tests and after volume expansion (7 mL/kg of succinylated gelatin). Fluid responsiveness was defined as an increase in cardiac index by 15%. Neither EEO, EIO nor their combination predicted fluid responsiveness reliably in our study. After a combined EEO and EIO, a cut-off point for CI change of 16.7% predicted fluid responsiveness with a sensitivity of 61.8%, specificity of 69.6% and ROC AUC of 0.593. In elective cardiac surgical patients with protective ventilation, respiratory occlusion tests failed to predict fluid responsiveness using uncalibrated pulse contour analysis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.