How to detect a positive response to a fluid bolus when cardiac output is not measured?

Are We Always Right? Evaluation of the Performance and Knowledge of the Passive Leg Raise Test in Detecting Volume Responsiveness in Critical Care Patients: A National German Survey

Background: In hemodynamically unstable patients, the passive leg raise (PLR) test is recommended for use as a self-fluid challenge for predicting preload responsiveness. However, to interpret the hemodynamic effects and reliability of the PLR, the method of performing it is of the utmost importance. Our aim was to determine the current practice of the correct application and interpretation of the PLR in intensive care patients. Methods: After ethical approval, we designed a cross-sectional online survey with a short user-friendly online questionnaire. Using a random sample of 1903 hospitals in Germany, 182 hospitals with different levels of care were invited via an email containing a link to the questionnaire. The online survey was conducted between December 2021 and January 2022. All critical care physicians from different medical disciplines were surveyed. We evaluated the correct points of concern for the PLR, including indication, contraindication, choice of initial position, how to interpret and apply the changes in cardiac output, and the limitations of the PLR. Results: A total of 292 respondents participated in the online survey, and 283/292 (97%) of the respondents completed the full survey. In addition, 132/283 (47%) were consultants and 119/283 (42%) worked at a university medical center. The question about the performance of the PLR was answered correctly by 72/283 (25%) of the participants. The limitations of the PLR, such as intra-abdominal hypertension, were correctly selected by 150/283 (53%) of the participants. The correct effect size (increase in stroke volume ≥ 10%) was correctly identified by 217/283 (77%) of the participants. Conclusions: Our results suggest a considerable disparity between the contemporary practice of the correct application and interpretation of the PLR and the practice recommendations from recently published data at German ICUs.

Consistency of data reporting in fluid responsiveness studies in the critically ill setting: the CODEFIRE consensus from the Cardiovascular Dynamic section of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine

PURPOSE

To provide consensus recommendations regarding hemodynamic data reporting in studies investigating fluid responsiveness and fluid challenge (FC) use in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

The Executive Committee of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) commissioned and supervised the project. A panel of 18 international experts and a methodologist identified main domains and items from a systematic literature, plus 2 ancillary domains. A three-step Delphi process based on an iterative approach was used to obtain the final consensus. In the Delphi 1 and 2, the items were selected with strong (≥ 80% of votes) or week agreement (70-80% of votes), while the Delphi 3 generated recommended (≥ 90% of votes) or suggested (80-90% of votes) items (RI and SI, respectively).

RESULTS

We identified 5 main domains initially including 117 items and the consensus finally resulted in 52 recommendations or suggestions: 18 RIs and 2 SIs statements were obtained for the domain "ICU admission", 11 RIs and 1 SI for the domain "mechanical ventilation", 5 RIs for the domain "reason for giving a FC", 8 RIs for the domain pre- and post-FC "hemodynamic data", and 7 RIs for the domain "pre-FC infused drugs". We had no consensus on the use of echocardiography, strong agreement regarding the volume (4 ml/kg) and the reference variable (cardiac output), while weak on administration rate (within 10 min) of FC in this setting.

CONCLUSION

This consensus found 5 main domains and provided 52 recommendations for data reporting in studies investigating fluid responsiveness in ICU patients.

THE ACCURACY OF INFERIOR VENA CAVA DISTENSIBILITY THROUGH THE TRANSHEPATIC APPROACH TO PREDICT FLUID RESPONSIVENESS IN PATIENTS WITH SEPTIC SHOCK AFTER EMERGENCY LAPAROTOMY

ABSTRACT

Background: We aimed to evaluate the ability of inferior vena cava (IVC) distensibility using the transhepatic approach to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with septic shock after emergency laparotomy. Methods: This prospective observational study included mechanically ventilated paralyzed adult who had septic shock after emergency laparotomy. The IVC dimensions were measured through the transhepatic and subxiphoid approaches. The fluid responsiveness was confirmed with >15% increase in cardiac output after 500 mL of fluid bolus. The outcomes were the ability of transhepatic (primary outcome) and subxiphoid approach to predict fluid responders using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve analysis. The gray zone for the two approaches was calculated. Results: Data from 51 patients were analyzed, and the number of fluid responders was 30 of 52 (58%). The transhepatic approach was feasible in all patients, whereas the subxiphoid approach was only feasible in 42 patients. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (95% confidence interval) for the transhepatic IVC distensibility was 0.88 (0.76-0.95), and it was comparable with that of the subxiphoid approach (0.81 [0.66-0.92], P = 0.417). The gray zone for the transhepatic IVC distensibility was 17% to 35% including 24 of 51 patients (47%), whereas the gray zone for the subxiphoid IVC distensibility was 13% to 34% including 18 of 42 patients (43%). Conclusion: In conclusion, the transhepatic approach for evaluation of IVC distensibility showed good accuracy in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with septic shock after emergency laparotomy. The transhepatic approach showed the same accuracy as the subxiphoid approach with the advantage of being feasible in larger number of patients.

Volume Management with Kidney Replacement Therapy in the Critically Ill Patient

While the administration of intravenous fluids remains an important treatment, the negative consequences of subsequent fluid overload have raised questions about when and how clinicians should pursue avenues of fluid removal. Decisions regarding fluid removal during critical illness are complex even for patients with preserved kidney function. This article seeks to apply general concepts of fluid management to the care of patients who also require KRT. Because optimal fluid management for any specific patient is likely to change over the course of critical illness, conceptual models using phases of care have been developed. In this review, we will examine the implications of one such model on the use of ultrafiltration during KRT for volume removal in distributive shock. This will also provide a useful lens to re-examine published data of KRT during critical illness. We will highlight recent prospective trials of KRT as well as recent retrospective studies examining ultrafiltration rate and mortality, review the results, and discuss applications and shortcomings of these studies. We also emphasize that current data and techniques suggest that optimal guidelines will not consist of recommendations for or against absolute fluid removal rates but will instead require the development of dynamic protocols involving frequent cycles of reassessment and adjustment of net fluid removal goals. If optimal fluid management is dynamic, then frequent assessment of fluid responsiveness, fluid toxicity, and tolerance of fluid removal will be needed. Innovations in our ability to assess these parameters may improve our management of ultrafiltration in the future.

Management of Acute Right Ventricular Failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Acute right ventricular failure (RVF) is a frequent condition associated with high morbidity and mortality. This review aims to provide a current overview of the pathophysiology, presentation, and comprehensive management of acute RVF.

RECENT FINDINGS

Acute RVF is a common disease with a pathophysiology that is not completely understood. There is renewed interest in the right ventricle (RV). Some advances have been principally made in chronic right ventricular failure (e.g., pulmonary hypertension). Due to a lack of precise definition and diagnostic tools, acute RVF is poorly studied. Few advances have been made in this field. Acute RVF is a complex, frequent, and life-threatening condition with several etiologies. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is the key diagnostic tool in search of the etiology. Management includes transfer to an expert center and admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) in most severe cases, etiological treatment, and general measures for RVF.

How I personalize fluid therapy in septic shock?

During septic shock, fluid therapy is aimed at increasing cardiac output and improving tissue oxygenation, but it poses two problems: it has inconsistent and transient efficacy, and it has many well-documented deleterious effects. We suggest that there is a place for its personalization according to the patient characteristics and the clinical situation, at all stages of circulatory failure. Regarding the choice of fluid for volume expansion, isotonic saline induces hyperchloremic acidosis, but only for very large volumes administered. We suggest that balanced solutions should be reserved for patients who have already received large volumes and in whom the chloremia is rising. The initial volume expansion, intended to compensate for the constant hypovolaemia in the initial phase of septic shock, cannot be adapted to the patient's weight only, as suggested by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, but should also consider potential absolute hypovolemia induced by fluid losses. After the initial fluid infusion, preload responsiveness may rapidly disappear, and it should be assessed. The choice between tests used for this purpose depends on the presence or absence of mechanical ventilation, the monitoring in place and the risk of fluid accumulation. In non-intubated patients, the passive leg raising test and the mini-fluid challenge are suitable. In patients without cardiac output monitoring, tests like the tidal volume challenge, the passive leg raising test and the mini-fluid challenge can be used as they can be performed by measuring changes in pulse pressure variation, assessed through an arterial line. The mini-fluid challenge should not be repeated in patients who already received large volumes of fluids. The variables to assess fluid accumulation depend on the clinical condition. In acute respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary arterial occlusion pressure, extravascular lung water and pulmonary vascular permeability index assess the risk of worsening alveolar oedema better than arterial oxygenation. In case of abdominal problems, the intra-abdominal pressure should be taken into account. Finally, fluid depletion in the de-escalation phase is considered in patients with significant fluid accumulation. Fluid removal can be guided by preload responsiveness testing, since haemodynamic deterioration is likely to occur in patients with a preload dependent state.

Right Ventricular Limitation: A Tale of Two Elastances

Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction is a commonly considered cause of low cardiac output in critically ill patients. Its management can be difficult and requires an understanding of how the RV limits cardiac output. We explain that RV stroke output is caught between the passive elastance of the RV walls during diastolic filling and the active elastance produced by the RV in systole. These two elastances limit RV filling and stroke volume and consequently limit left ventricular stroke volume. We emphasize the use of the term "RV limitation" and argue that limitation of RV filling is the primary pathophysiological process by which the RV causes hemodynamic instability. Importantly, RV limitation can be present even when RV function is normal. We use the term "RV dysfunction" to indicate that RV end-systolic elastance is depressed or diastolic elastance is increased. When RV dysfunction is present, RV limitation occurs at lowerpulmonary valve opening pressures and lower stroke volume, but stroke volume and cardiac output still can be maintained until RV filling is limited. We use the term "RV failure" to indicate the condition in which RV output is insufficient for tissue needs. We discuss the physiological underpinnings of these terms and implications for clinical management.

Anesthetic management of patients with sepsis/septic shock

Sepsis is defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, while septic shock is a subset of sepsis with persistent hypotension requiring vasopressors to maintain a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of ≥65 mmHg and having a serum lactate level of >2 mmol/L, despite adequate volume resuscitation. Sepsis and septic shock are medical emergencies and time-dependent diseases with a high mortality rate for which early identification, early antibiotic therapy, and early source control are paramount for patient outcomes. The patient may require surgical intervention or an invasive procedure aiming to control the source of infection, and the anesthesiologist has a pivotal role in all phases of patient management. During the preoperative assessment, patients should be aware of all possible organ dysfunctions, and the severity of the disease combined with the patient's physiological reserve should be carefully assessed. All possible efforts should be made to optimize conditions before surgery, especially from a hemodynamic point of view. Anesthetic agents may worsen the hemodynamics of shock patients, and the anesthesiologist must know the properties of each anesthetic agent. All possible efforts should be made to maintain organ perfusion supporting hemodynamics with fluids, vasoactive agents, and inotropes if required.

A plea for personalization of the hemodynamic management of septic shock

Although guidelines provide excellent expert guidance for managing patients with septic shock, they leave room for personalization according to patients' condition. Hemodynamic monitoring depends on the evolution phase: salvage, optimization, stabilization, and de-escalation. Initially during the salvage phase, monitoring to identify shock etiology and severity should include arterial pressure and lactate measurements together with clinical examination, particularly skin mottling and capillary refill time. Low diastolic blood pressure may trigger vasopressor initiation. At this stage, echocardiography may be useful to identify significant cardiac dysfunction. During the optimization phase, echocardiographic monitoring should be pursued and completed by the assessment of tissue perfusion through central or mixed-venous oxygen saturation, lactate, and carbon dioxide veno-arterial gradient. Transpulmonary thermodilution and the pulmonary artery catheter should be considered in the most severe patients. Fluid therapy also depends on shock phases. While administered liberally during the resuscitation phase, fluid responsiveness should be assessed during the optimization phase. During stabilization, fluid infusion should be minimized. In the de-escalation phase, safe fluid withdrawal could be achieved by ensuring tissue perfusion is preserved. Norepinephrine is recommended as first-line vasopressor therapy, while vasopressin may be preferred in some patients. Essential questions remain regarding optimal vasopressor selection, combination therapy, and the most effective and safest escalation. Serum renin and the angiotensin I/II ratio may identify patients who benefit most from angiotensin II. The optimal therapeutic strategy for shock requiring high-dose vasopressors is scant. In all cases, vasopressor therapy should be individualized, based on clinical evaluation and blood flow measurements to avoid excessive vasoconstriction. Inotropes should be considered in patients with decreased cardiac contractility associated with impaired tissue perfusion. Based on pharmacologic properties, we suggest as the first test a limited dose of dobutamine, to add enoximone or milrinone in the second line and substitute or add levosimendan if inefficient. Regarding adjunctive therapies, while hydrocortisone is nowadays advised in patients receiving high doses of vasopressors, patients responding to corticosteroids may be identified in the future by the analysis of selected cytokines or specific transcriptomic endotypes. To conclude, although some general rules apply for shock management, a personalized approach should be considered for hemodynamic monitoring and support.

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

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.

Novel Methods for Predicting Fluid Responsiveness in Critically Ill Patients—A Narrative Review

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.

Management of sepsis and septic shock in the emergency department

Early management of sepsis and septic shock is crucial for patients' prognosis. As the Emergency Department (ED) is the place where the first medical contact for septic patients is likely to occur, emergency physicians play an essential role in the early phases of patient management, which consists of accurate initial diagnosis, resuscitation, and early antibiotic treatment. Since the issuing of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines in 2016, several studies have been published on different aspects of sepsis management, adding a substantial amount of new information on the pathophysiology and treatment of sepsis and septic shock. In light of this emerging evidence, the present narrative review provides a comprehensive account of the recent advances in septic patient management in the ED.

Rational Fluid Resuscitation in Sepsis for the Hospitalist: A Narrative Review

Administration of fluid is a cornerstone of supportive care for sepsis. Current guidelines suggest a protocolized approach to fluid resuscitation in sepsis despite a lack of strong physiological or clinical evidence to support it. Both initial and ongoing fluid resuscitation requires careful consideration, as fluid overload has been shown to be associated with increased risk for mortality. Initial fluid resuscitation should favor balanced crystalloids over isotonic saline, as the former is associated with decreased risk of renal dysfunction. Traditionally selected resuscitation targets, such as lactate elevation, are fraught with limitations. For developing or established septic shock, a focused hemodynamic assessment is needed to determine if fluid is likely to be beneficial. When initial fluid therapy is unable to achieve the blood pressure goal, initiation of early vasopressors and admission to intensive care should be favored over repetitive administration of fluid.

Volume Infusion Markedly Increases Femoral dP/dtmax in Fluid-Responsive Patients Only

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the preload dependence of femoral maximal change in pressure over time (dP/dtmax) during volume expansion in preload dependent and independent critically ill patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective database analysis.

SETTING

Two adult polyvalent ICUs.

PATIENTS

Twenty-five critically ill patients with acute circulatory failure.

INTERVENTIONS

Thirty-five fluid infusions of 500 mL normal saline.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Changes in femoral dP/dtmax, systolic, diastolic, and pulse femoral arterial pressure were obtained from the pressure waveform analysis using the PiCCO2 system (Pulsion Medical Systems, Feldkirchen, Germany). Stroke volume index was obtained by transpulmonary thermodilution. Statistical analysis was performed comparing results before and after volume expansion and according to the presence or absence of preload dependence (increases in stroke volume index ≥ 15%). Femoral dP/dtmax increased by 46% after fluid infusion in preload-dependent cases (mean change = 510.6 mm Hg·s; p = 0.005) and remained stable in preload-independent ones (mean change = 49.2 mm Hg·s; p = 0.114). Fluid-induced changes in femoral dP/dtmax correlated with fluid-induced changes in stroke volume index in preload-dependent cases (r = 0.618; p = 0.032), but not in preload-independent ones. Femoral dP/dtmax strongly correlated with pulse and systolic arterial pressures and with total arterial stiffness, regardless of the preload dependence status (r > 0.9 and p < 0.001 in all cases).

CONCLUSIONS

Femoral dP/dtmax increased with volume expansion in case of preload dependence but not in case of preload independence and was strongly related to pulse pressure and total arterial stiffness regardless of preload dependence status. Therefore, femoral dP/dtmax is not a load-independent marker of left ventricular contractility and should be not used to track contractility in critically ill patients.

Dynamic arterial elastance measured with pressure recording analytical method, and mean arterial pressure responsiveness in hypotensive preload dependent patients undergoing cardiac surgery: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Organ perfusion is a factor of cardiac output and perfusion pressure. Recent evidence shows that dynamic arterial elastance is a reliable index of the interaction between the left ventricle and the arterial system and, in turn, of left ventricular mechanical efficiency. A practical approach to the assessment of dynamic arterial elastance at the bedside is the ratio between pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation, which might predict the effect of a fluid challenge on the arterial pressure in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the ability of dynamic arterial elastance, measured by the pressure recording analytical method (PRAM), to predict the response of mean arterial pressure (MAP) to a fluid challenge.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING

Cardiac surgery patients in a university hospital.

PATIENTS

Preload-dependent (pulse pressure variation ≥13%), hypotensive (MAP ≤65 mmHg) patients, without right ventricular dysfunction, at the end of cardiac surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

A 250 ml fluid challenge infused over 3 min.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A receiver-operating characteristic curve was generated to test the ability of the baseline (before fluid challenge) dynamic arterial elastance (primary endpoint) and all other haemodynamic variables (secondary endpoint) to predict MAP responsiveness (≥10% increase in MAP) after a fluid challenge.

RESULTS

Of 270 patients undergoing cardiac surgery, 97 (35.9%) were preload-dependent, hypotensive and received a fluid challenge. Of these 97 patients, 50 (51%) were MAP responders (≥10% increase in MAP) and 47 (48%) were MAP nonresponders (<10% increase in MAP). Baseline dynamic arterial elastance (mean ± SD) had an area under the curve of 0.64 ± 0.06 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.53 to 0.73; P = 0.017]. A dynamic arterial elastance at least 1.07 with a grey zone ranging between 0.9 and 1.5 had 86% sensitivity (95% CI, 73 to 94) and 45% specificity (95% CI, 30 to 60) in predicting MAP increase.

CONCLUSION

In a hypotensive preload-dependent cardiac surgery cohort without right ventricular dysfunction, dynamic arterial elastance measured by PRAM can predict pressure response for values greater than 1.5 or less than 0.9.

Prediction of fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients

In patients with acute circulatory failure, the primary goal of volume expansion is to increase cardiac output. However, this expected effect is inconstant, so that in many instances, fluid administration does not result in any haemodynamic benefit. In such cases, fluid could only exert some deleterious effects. It is now well demonstrated that excessive fluid administration is harmful, especially during acute respiratory distress syndrome and in sepsis or septic shock. This is the reason why some tests and indices have been developed in order to assess “fluid responsiveness” before deciding to perform volume expansion. While preload markers have been used for many years for this purpose, they have been repeatedly shown to be unreliable, which is mainly related to physiological issues. As alternatives, “dynamic” indices have been introduced. These indices are based upon the changes in cardiac output or stroke volume resulting from various changes in preload conditions, induced by heart-lung interactions, postural manoeuvres or by the infusion of small amounts of fluids. The haemodynamic effects and the reliability of these “dynamic” indices of fluid responsiveness are now well described. From their respective advantages and limitations, it is also possible to describe their clinical interest and the clinical setting in which they are applicable.

Evaluation of radial artery pulse pressure effects on detection of stroke volume changes after volume loading maneuvers in cardiac surgical patients

BACKGROUND

Fluid responsiveness is defined as an increase in cardiac output (CO) or stroke volume (SV) of >10-15% after fluid challenge (FC). However, CO or SV monitoring is often not available in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether changes in radial artery pulse pressure (rPP) induced by FC or passive leg raising (PLR) correlates with changes in SV in patients after cardiac surgery.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included 102 patients undergoing cardiac surgery, in which rPP and SV were recorded before and immediately after a PLR test and FC with 250 mL of Gelofusine for 10 min. SV was measured using pulse contour analysis. Patients were divided into responders (≥15% increase in SV after FC) and non-responders. The hemodynamic variables between responders and non-responders were analyzed to assess the ability of rPP to track SV changes.

RESULTS

A total of 52% patients were fluid responders in this study. An rPP increase induced by FC was significantly correlated with SV changes after a FC (ΔSV-FC, r=0.62, P<0.01). A fluid-induced increase in rPP (ΔrPP-FC) of >16% detected a fluid-induced increase in SV of >15%, with a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 73%. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for the fluid-induced changes in rPP identified fluid responsiveness was 0.881 (95% CI: 0.802-0.937). A grey zone of 16-34% included 30% of patients for ΔrPP-FC. The ΔrPP-PLR was weakly correlated with ΔSV-FC (r=0.30, P<0.01). An increase in rPP induced by PLR (ΔrPP-PLR) predicted fluid responsiveness with an AUROC of 0.734 (95% CI: 0.637-0.816). A grey zone of 10-23% included 52% of patients for ΔrPP-PLR.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in rPP might be used to detect changes in SV via FC in mechanically ventilated patients after cardiac surgery. In contrast, changes in rPP induced by PLR are unreliable predictors of fluid responsiveness.

Evaluation of fluid responsiveness during COVID-19 pandemic: what are the remaining choices?

Non-protocolized fluid administration in critically ill patients, especially those with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), is associated with poor outcomes. Therefore, fluid administration in patients with Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) should be properly guided. Choice of an index to guide fluid management during a pandemic with mass patient admissions carries an additional challenge due to the relatively limited resources. An ideal test for assessment of fluid responsiveness during this pandemic should be accurate in ARDS patients, economic, easy to interpret by junior staff, valid in patients in the prone position and performed with minimal contact with the patient to avoid spread of infection. Patients with COVID-19 ARDS are divided into two phenotypes (L phenotype and H phenotype) according to their lung compliance. Selection of the proper index for fluid responsiveness varies according to the patient phenotype. Heart–lung interaction methods can be used only in patients with L phenotype ARDS. Real-time measures, such a pulse pressure variation, are more appropriate for use during this pandemic compared to ultrasound-derived measures, because contamination of the ultrasound machine can spread infection. Preload challenge tests are suitable for use in all COVID-19 patients. Passive leg raising test is relatively better than mini-fluid challenge test, because it can be repeated without overloading the patient with fluids. Trendelenburg maneuver is a suitable alternative to the passive leg raising test in patients with prone position. If a cardiac output monitor was not available, the response to the passive leg raising test could be traced by measurement of the pulse pressure or the perfusion index. Preload modifying maneuvers, such as tidal volume challenge, can also be used in COVID-19 patients, especially if the patient was in the gray zone of other dynamic tests. However, the preload modifying maneuvers were not extensively evaluated outside the operating room. Selection of the proper test would vary according to the level of healthcare in the country and the load of admissions which might be overwhelming. Evaluation of the volume status should be comprehensive; therefore, the presence of signs of volume overload such as lower limb edema, lung edema, and severe hypoxemia should be considered beside the usual indices for fluid responsiveness.

Characteristics of resuscitation, and association between use of dynamic tests of fluid responsiveness and outcomes in septic patients: results of a multicenter prospective cohort study in Argentina

BACKGROUND

Resuscitation of septic patients regarding goals, monitoring aspects and therapy is highly variable. Our aim was to characterize cardiovascular and fluid management of sepsis in Argentina, a low and middle-income country (LMIC). Furthermore, we sought to test whether the utilization of dynamic tests of fluid responsiveness, as a guide for fluid therapy after initial resuscitation in patients with persistent or recurrent hypoperfusion, was associated with decreased mortality.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of a national, multicenter prospective cohort study (n = 787) fulfilling Sepsis-3 definitions. Epidemiological characteristics, hemodynamic management data, type of fluids and vasopressors administered, physiological variables denoting hypoperfusion, use of tests of fluid responsiveness, and outcomes, were registered. Independent predictors of mortality were identified with logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Initially, 584 of 787 patients (74%) had mean arterial pressure (MAP) < 65 mm Hg and/or signs of hypoperfusion and received 30 mL/kg of fluids, mostly normal saline (53%) and Ringer lactate (35%). Vasopressors and/or inotropes were administered in 514 (65%) patients, mainly norepinephrine (100%) and dobutamine (9%); in 22%, vasopressors were administered before ending the fluid load. After this, 413 patients (53%) presented persisting or recurrent hypotension and/or hypoperfusion, which prompted administration of additional fluid, based on: lactate levels (66%), urine output (62%), heart rate (54%), central venous O₂ saturation (39%), central venous-arterial PCO₂ difference (38%), MAP (31%), dynamic tests of fluid responsiveness (30%), capillary-refill time (28%), mottling (26%), central venous pressure (24%), cardiac index (13%) and/or pulmonary wedge pressure (3%). Independent predictors of mortality were SOFA and Charlson scores, lactate, requirement of mechanical ventilation, and utilization of dynamic tests of fluid responsiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective observational study assessing the characteristics of resuscitation of septic patients in Argentina, a LMIC, the prevalent use of initial fluid bolus with normal saline and Ringer lactate and the use of norepinephrine as the most frequent vasopressor, reflect current worldwide practices. After initial resuscitation with 30 mL/kg of fluids and vasopressors, 413 patients developed persistent or recurrent hypoperfusion, which required further volume expansion. In this setting, the assessment of fluid responsiveness with dynamic tests to guide fluid resuscitation was independently associated with decreased mortality.

Systematic assessment of fluid responsiveness during early septic shock resuscitation: secondary analysis of the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial

BACKGROUND

Fluid boluses are administered to septic shock patients with the purpose of increasing cardiac output as a means to restore tissue perfusion. Unfortunately, fluid therapy has a narrow therapeutic index, and therefore, several approaches to increase safety have been proposed. Fluid responsiveness (FR) assessment might predict which patients will effectively increase cardiac output after a fluid bolus (FR+), thus preventing potentially harmful fluid administration in non-fluid responsive (FR-) patients. However, there are scarce data on the impact of assessing FR on major outcomes. The recent ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial included systematic per-protocol assessment of FR. We performed a post hoc analysis of the study dataset with the aim of exploring the relationship between FR status at baseline, attainment of specific targets, and clinically relevant outcomes.

METHODS

ANDROMEDA-SHOCK compared the effect of peripheral perfusion- vs. lactate-targeted resuscitation on 28-day mortality. FR was assessed before each fluid bolus and periodically thereafter. FR+ and FR- subgroups, independent of the original randomization, were compared for fluid administration, achievement of resuscitation targets, vasoactive agents use, and major outcomes such as organ dysfunction and support, length of stay, and 28-day mortality.

RESULTS

FR could be determined in 348 patients at baseline. Two hundred and forty-two patients (70%) were categorized as fluid responders. Both groups achieved comparable successful resuscitation targets, although non-fluid responders received less resuscitation fluids (0 [0-500] vs. 1500 [1000-2500] mL; p 0.0001), exhibited less positive fluid balances, but received more vasopressor testing. No difference in clinically relevant outcomes between FR+ and FR- patients was found, including 24-h SOFA score (9 [5-12] vs. 8 [5-11], p = 0.4), need for MV (78% vs. 72%, p = 0.16), need for RRT (18% vs. 21%, p = 0.7), ICU-LOS (6 [3-11] vs. 6 [3-16] days, p = 0.2), and 28-day mortality (40% vs. 36%, p = 0.5). Only thirteen patients remained fluid responsive along the intervention period.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic assessment allowed determination of fluid responsiveness status in more than 80% of patients with early septic shock. Fluid boluses could be stopped in non-fluid responsive patients without any negative impact on clinical relevant outcomes. Our results suggest that fluid resuscitation might be safely guided by FR assessment in septic shock patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03078712. Registered retrospectively on March 13, 2017.