Cargando…
Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: A global inception cohort study
BACKGROUND: Fluid challenges (FCs) are one of the most commonly used therapies in critically ill patients and represent the cornerstone of hemodynamic management in intensive care units. There are clear benefits and harms from fluid therapy. Limited data on the indication, type, amount and rate of a...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4550653/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26162676 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-015-3850-x |
_version_ | 1782387477393178624 |
---|---|
author | Cecconi, Maurizio Hofer, Christoph Teboul, Jean-Louis Pettila, Ville Wilkman, Erika Molnar, Zsolt Della Rocca, Giorgio Aldecoa, Cesar Artigas, Antonio Jog, Sameer Sander, Michael Spies, Claudia Lefrant, Jean-Yves De Backer, Daniel |
author_facet | Cecconi, Maurizio Hofer, Christoph Teboul, Jean-Louis Pettila, Ville Wilkman, Erika Molnar, Zsolt Della Rocca, Giorgio Aldecoa, Cesar Artigas, Antonio Jog, Sameer Sander, Michael Spies, Claudia Lefrant, Jean-Yves De Backer, Daniel |
author_sort | Cecconi, Maurizio |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Fluid challenges (FCs) are one of the most commonly used therapies in critically ill patients and represent the cornerstone of hemodynamic management in intensive care units. There are clear benefits and harms from fluid therapy. Limited data on the indication, type, amount and rate of an FC in critically ill patients exist in the literature. The primary aim was to evaluate how physicians conduct FCs in terms of type, volume, and rate of given fluid; the secondary aim was to evaluate variables used to trigger an FC and to compare the proportion of patients receiving further fluid administration based on the response to the FC. METHODS: This was an observational study conducted in ICUs around the world. Each participating unit entered a maximum of 20 patients with one FC. RESULTS: 2213 patients were enrolled and analyzed in the study. The median [interquartile range] amount of fluid given during an FC was 500 ml (500–1000). The median time was 24 min (40–60 min), and the median rate of FC was 1000 [500–1333] ml/h. The main indication for FC was hypotension in 1211 (59 %, CI 57–61 %). In 43 % (CI 41–45 %) of the cases no hemodynamic variable was used. Static markers of preload were used in 785 of 2213 cases (36 %, CI 34–37 %). Dynamic indices of preload responsiveness were used in 483 of 2213 cases (22 %, CI 20–24 %). No safety variable for the FC was used in 72 % (CI 70–74 %) of the cases. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who received further fluids after the FC between those with a positive, with an uncertain or with a negatively judged response. CONCLUSIONS: The current practice and evaluation of FC in critically ill patients are highly variable. Prediction of fluid responsiveness is not used routinely, safety limits are rarely used, and information from previous failed FCs is not always taken into account. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00134-015-3850-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4550653 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-45506532015-08-28 Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: A global inception cohort study Cecconi, Maurizio Hofer, Christoph Teboul, Jean-Louis Pettila, Ville Wilkman, Erika Molnar, Zsolt Della Rocca, Giorgio Aldecoa, Cesar Artigas, Antonio Jog, Sameer Sander, Michael Spies, Claudia Lefrant, Jean-Yves De Backer, Daniel Intensive Care Med Seven-Day Profile Publication BACKGROUND: Fluid challenges (FCs) are one of the most commonly used therapies in critically ill patients and represent the cornerstone of hemodynamic management in intensive care units. There are clear benefits and harms from fluid therapy. Limited data on the indication, type, amount and rate of an FC in critically ill patients exist in the literature. The primary aim was to evaluate how physicians conduct FCs in terms of type, volume, and rate of given fluid; the secondary aim was to evaluate variables used to trigger an FC and to compare the proportion of patients receiving further fluid administration based on the response to the FC. METHODS: This was an observational study conducted in ICUs around the world. Each participating unit entered a maximum of 20 patients with one FC. RESULTS: 2213 patients were enrolled and analyzed in the study. The median [interquartile range] amount of fluid given during an FC was 500 ml (500–1000). The median time was 24 min (40–60 min), and the median rate of FC was 1000 [500–1333] ml/h. The main indication for FC was hypotension in 1211 (59 %, CI 57–61 %). In 43 % (CI 41–45 %) of the cases no hemodynamic variable was used. Static markers of preload were used in 785 of 2213 cases (36 %, CI 34–37 %). Dynamic indices of preload responsiveness were used in 483 of 2213 cases (22 %, CI 20–24 %). No safety variable for the FC was used in 72 % (CI 70–74 %) of the cases. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who received further fluids after the FC between those with a positive, with an uncertain or with a negatively judged response. CONCLUSIONS: The current practice and evaluation of FC in critically ill patients are highly variable. Prediction of fluid responsiveness is not used routinely, safety limits are rarely used, and information from previous failed FCs is not always taken into account. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00134-015-3850-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2015-07-11 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4550653/ /pubmed/26162676 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-015-3850-x Text en © The Author(s) 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Seven-Day Profile Publication Cecconi, Maurizio Hofer, Christoph Teboul, Jean-Louis Pettila, Ville Wilkman, Erika Molnar, Zsolt Della Rocca, Giorgio Aldecoa, Cesar Artigas, Antonio Jog, Sameer Sander, Michael Spies, Claudia Lefrant, Jean-Yves De Backer, Daniel Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: A global inception cohort study |
title | Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: A global inception cohort study |
title_full | Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: A global inception cohort study |
title_fullStr | Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: A global inception cohort study |
title_full_unstemmed | Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: A global inception cohort study |
title_short | Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: A global inception cohort study |
title_sort | fluid challenges in intensive care: the fenice study: a global inception cohort study |
topic | Seven-Day Profile Publication |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4550653/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26162676 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-015-3850-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cecconimaurizio fluidchallengesinintensivecarethefenicestudyaglobalinceptioncohortstudy AT hoferchristoph fluidchallengesinintensivecarethefenicestudyaglobalinceptioncohortstudy AT tebouljeanlouis fluidchallengesinintensivecarethefenicestudyaglobalinceptioncohortstudy AT pettilaville fluidchallengesinintensivecarethefenicestudyaglobalinceptioncohortstudy AT wilkmanerika fluidchallengesinintensivecarethefenicestudyaglobalinceptioncohortstudy AT molnarzsolt fluidchallengesinintensivecarethefenicestudyaglobalinceptioncohortstudy AT dellaroccagiorgio fluidchallengesinintensivecarethefenicestudyaglobalinceptioncohortstudy AT aldecoacesar fluidchallengesinintensivecarethefenicestudyaglobalinceptioncohortstudy AT artigasantonio fluidchallengesinintensivecarethefenicestudyaglobalinceptioncohortstudy AT jogsameer fluidchallengesinintensivecarethefenicestudyaglobalinceptioncohortstudy AT sandermichael fluidchallengesinintensivecarethefenicestudyaglobalinceptioncohortstudy AT spiesclaudia fluidchallengesinintensivecarethefenicestudyaglobalinceptioncohortstudy AT lefrantjeanyves fluidchallengesinintensivecarethefenicestudyaglobalinceptioncohortstudy AT debackerdaniel fluidchallengesinintensivecarethefenicestudyaglobalinceptioncohortstudy AT fluidchallengesinintensivecarethefenicestudyaglobalinceptioncohortstudy |