13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      review-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

          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.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-04056-3.

          Related collections

          Most cited references138

          • 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

            Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine

            Objective Circulatory shock is a life-threatening syndrome resulting in multiorgan failure and a high mortality rate. The aim of this consensus is to provide support to the bedside clinician regarding the diagnosis, management and monitoring of shock. Methods The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine invited 12 experts to form a Task Force to update a previous consensus (Antonelli et al.: Intensive Care Med 33:575–590, 2007). The same five questions addressed in the earlier consensus were used as the outline for the literature search and review, with the aim of the Task Force to produce statements based on the available literature and evidence. These questions were: (1) What are the epidemiologic and pathophysiologic features of shock in the intensive care unit? (2) Should we monitor preload and fluid responsiveness in shock? (3) How and when should we monitor stroke volume or cardiac output in shock? (4) What markers of the regional and microcirculation can be monitored, and how can cellular function be assessed in shock? (5) What is the evidence for using hemodynamic monitoring to direct therapy in shock? Four types of statements were used: definition, recommendation, best practice and statement of fact. Results Forty-four statements were made. The main new statements include: (1) statements on individualizing blood pressure targets; (2) statements on the assessment and prediction of fluid responsiveness; (3) statements on the use of echocardiography and hemodynamic monitoring. Conclusions This consensus provides 44 statements that can be used at the bedside to diagnose, treat and monitor patients with shock.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Circulatory Shock

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                antonio.messina@humanitas.it
                Journal
                Crit Care
                Critical Care
                BioMed Central (London )
                1364-8535
                1466-609X
                21 June 2022
                21 June 2022
                2022
                : 26
                : 186
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center—IRCCS, Via Alessandro Manzoni, 56, 20089 Rozzano, Milano Italy
                [2 ]GRID grid.452490.e, Department of Biomedical Sciences, , Humanitas University, ; Pieve Emanuele, Milano Italy
                [3 ]GRID grid.16563.37, ISNI 0000000121663741, Università del Piemonte Orientale, ; Vercelli, Italy
                [4 ]GRID grid.7870.8, ISNI 0000 0001 2157 0406, Departamento de Medicina Intensiva, Facultad de Medicina, , Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, ; Diagonal Paraguay 362, Santiago, Chile
                [5 ]GRID grid.413784.d, ISNI 0000 0001 2181 7253, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris-Sud, Hôpital de Bicêtre, Medical Intensive Care Unit, ; Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, F-94270 Paris, France
                [6 ]GRID grid.50550.35, ISNI 0000 0001 2175 4109, Université Paris-Saclay, AP-HP, Service de médecine intensive-réanimation, Hôpital de Bicêtre, ; Paris, France
                [7 ]GRID grid.462435.2, DMU CORREVE, Inserm UMR S_999, FHU SEPSIS, Groupe de Recherche Clinique CARMAS, ; Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, Paris, France
                Article
                4056
                10.1186/s13054-022-04056-3
                9210670
                35729632
                f43fd23d-c6e7-432e-850f-7c81b643d8c1
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis 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
                : 1 April 2022
                : 7 June 2022
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                fluids,fluid challenge,fluid bolus,fluid responsiveness,critically ill patients

                Comments

                Comment on this article