0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Coexistence of a fluid responsive state and venous congestion signals in critically ill patients: a multicenter observational proof-of-concept study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Current recommendations support guiding fluid resuscitation through the assessment of fluid responsiveness. Recently, the concept of fluid tolerance and the prevention of venous congestion (VC) have emerged as relevant aspects to be considered to avoid potentially deleterious side effects of fluid resuscitation. However, there is paucity of data on the relationship of fluid responsiveness and VC. This study aims to compare the prevalence of venous congestion in fluid responsive and fluid unresponsive critically ill patients after intensive care (ICU) admission.

          Methods

          Multicenter, prospective cross-sectional observational study conducted in three medical–surgical ICUs in Chile. Consecutive mechanically ventilated patients that required vasopressors and admitted < 24 h to ICU were included between November 2022 and June 2023. Patients were assessed simultaneously for fluid responsiveness and VC at a single timepoint. Fluid responsiveness status, VC signals such as central venous pressure, estimation of left ventricular filling pressures, lung, and abdominal ultrasound congestion indexes and relevant clinical data were collected.

          Results

          Ninety patients were included. Median age was 63 [45–71] years old, and median SOFA score was 9 [7–11]. Thirty-eight percent of the patients were fluid responsive (FR+), while 62% were fluid unresponsive (FR−). The most prevalent diagnosis was sepsis (41%) followed by respiratory failure (22%). The prevalence of at least one VC signal was not significantly different between FR+ and FR− groups (53% vs. 57%, p = 0.69), as well as the proportion of patients with 2 or 3 VC signals (15% vs. 21%, p = 0.4). We found no association between fluid balance, CRT status, or diagnostic group and the presence of VC signals.

          Conclusions

          Venous congestion signals were prevalent in both fluid responsive and unresponsive critically ill patients. The presence of venous congestion was not associated with fluid balance or diagnostic group. Further studies should assess the clinical relevance of these results and their potential impact on resuscitation and monitoring practices.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-024-04834-1.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

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

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            International evidence-based recommendations for point-of-care lung ultrasound.

            The purpose of this study is to provide evidence-based and expert consensus recommendations for lung ultrasound with focus on emergency and critical care settings. A multidisciplinary panel of 28 experts from eight countries was involved. Literature was reviewed from January 1966 to June 2011. Consensus members searched multiple databases including Pubmed, Medline, OVID, Embase, and others. The process used to develop these evidence-based recommendations involved two phases: determining the level of quality of evidence and developing the recommendation. The quality of evidence is assessed by the grading of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) method. However, the GRADE system does not enforce a specific method on how the panel should reach decisions during the consensus process. Our methodology committee decided to utilize the RAND appropriateness method for panel judgment and decisions/consensus. Seventy-three proposed statements were examined and discussed in three conferences held in Bologna, Pisa, and Rome. Each conference included two rounds of face-to-face modified Delphi technique. Anonymous panel voting followed each round. The panel did not reach an agreement and therefore did not adopt any recommendations for six statements. Weak/conditional recommendations were made for 2 statements, and strong recommendations were made for the remaining 65 statements. The statements were then recategorized and grouped to their current format. Internal and external peer-review processes took place before submission of the recommendations. Updates will occur at least every 4 years or whenever significant major changes in evidence appear. This document reflects the overall results of the first consensus conference on "point-of-care" lung ultrasound. Statements were discussed and elaborated by experts who published the vast majority of papers on clinical use of lung ultrasound in the last 20 years. Recommendations were produced to guide implementation, development, and standardization of lung ultrasound in all relevant settings.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares.

              Central venous pressure (CVP) is used almost universally to guide fluid therapy in hospitalized patients. Both historical and recent data suggest that this approach may be flawed. A systematic review of the literature to determine the following: (1) the relationship between CVP and blood volume, (2) the ability of CVP to predict fluid responsiveness, and (3) the ability of the change in CVP (DeltaCVP) to predict fluid responsiveness. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and citation review of relevant primary and review articles. Reported clinical trials that evaluated either the relationship between CVP and blood volume or reported the associated between CVP/DeltaCVP and the change in stroke volume/cardiac index following a fluid challenge. From 213 articles screened, 24 studies met our inclusion criteria and were included for data extraction. The studies included human adult subjects, healthy control subjects, and ICU and operating room patients. Data were abstracted on study design, study size, study setting, patient population, correlation coefficient between CVP and blood volume, correlation coefficient (or receive operator characteristic [ROC]) between CVP/DeltaCVP and change in stroke index/cardiac index, percentage of patients who responded to a fluid challenge, and baseline CVP of the fluid responders and nonresponders. Metaanalytic techniques were used to pool data. The 24 studies included 803 patients; 5 studies compared CVP with measured circulating blood volume, while 19 studies determined the relationship between CVP/DeltaCVP and change in cardiac performance following a fluid challenge. The pooled correlation coefficient between CVP and measured blood volume was 0.16 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 0.28). Overall, 56+/-16% of the patients included in this review responded to a fluid challenge. The pooled correlation coefficient between baseline CVP and change in stroke index/cardiac index was 0.18 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.28). The pooled area under the ROC curve was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.61). The pooled correlation between DeltaCVP and change in stroke index/cardiac index was 0.11 (95% CI, 0.015 to 0.21). Baseline CVP was 8.7+/-2.32 mm Hg [mean+/-SD] in the responders as compared to 9.7+/-2.2 mm Hg in nonresponders (not significant). This systematic review demonstrated a very poor relationship between CVP and blood volume as well as the inability of CVP/DeltaCVP to predict the hemodynamic response to a fluid challenge. CVP should not be used to make clinical decisions regarding fluid management.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                e.kattan@gmail.com
                Journal
                Crit Care
                Critical Care
                BioMed Central (London )
                1364-8535
                1466-609X
                19 February 2024
                19 February 2024
                2024
                : 28
                : 52
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Departamento de Medicina Intensiva, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, ( https://ror.org/04teye511) Avenida Diagonal Paraguay 362, Santiago, Chile
                [2 ]Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos, Hospital de Quilpué, ( https://ror.org/02r8qsp29) Quilpué, Chile
                [3 ]Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos, Hospital Las Higueras, ( https://ror.org/05e3gef34) Talcahuano, Chile
                [4 ]Hospital Universitario Puerta del Mar, ( https://ror.org/040xzg562) Cádiz, Spain
                [5 ]Institute of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, ( https://ror.org/02crff812) Zurich, Switzerland
                [6 ]Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Fundación Valle del Lili, ( https://ror.org/00xdnjz02) Cali, Colombia
                [7 ]Translational Research Laboratory in Critical Care Medicine (TransLab-CCM), Universidad Icesi, ( https://ror.org/02t54e151) Cali, Colombia
                [8 ]GRID grid.459278.5, ISNI 0000 0004 4910 4652, Intensive Care Unit, Hopital Santa Cabrini, , CIUSSS EMTL, ; Montreal, Canada
                [9 ]Department of Intensive Care Adults, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, ( https://ror.org/018906e22) Rotterdam, The Netherlands
                [10 ]Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, ( https://ror.org/01esghr10) New York, USA
                Article
                4834
                10.1186/s13054-024-04834-1
                10877871
                38374167
                841ada62-cce2-4bfe-931d-3f4ae6ca5da4
                © The Author(s) 2024

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 16 October 2023
                : 10 February 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100020884, Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo;
                Award ID: FONDECYT No 1230475
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100009610, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile;
                Award ID: Proyecto de Becario Residente DIEMUC No PB-03-23
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                fluid resuscitation,venous congestion,fluid responsiveness,critical care,vexus

                Comments

                Comment on this article