Cargando…
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...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Singapore
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7246295/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32451626 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00540-020-02801-y |
_version_ | 1783537913328304128 |
---|---|
author | Hasanin, Ahmed Mostafa, Maha |
author_facet | Hasanin, Ahmed Mostafa, Maha |
author_sort | Hasanin, Ahmed |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7246295 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer Singapore |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72462952020-05-26 Evaluation of fluid responsiveness during COVID-19 pandemic: what are the remaining choices? Hasanin, Ahmed Mostafa, Maha J Anesth Review Article 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. Springer Singapore 2020-05-25 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7246295/ /pubmed/32451626 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00540-020-02801-y Text en © Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists 2020 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic. |
spellingShingle | Review Article Hasanin, Ahmed Mostafa, Maha Evaluation of fluid responsiveness during COVID-19 pandemic: what are the remaining choices? |
title | Evaluation of fluid responsiveness during COVID-19 pandemic: what are the remaining choices? |
title_full | Evaluation of fluid responsiveness during COVID-19 pandemic: what are the remaining choices? |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of fluid responsiveness during COVID-19 pandemic: what are the remaining choices? |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of fluid responsiveness during COVID-19 pandemic: what are the remaining choices? |
title_short | Evaluation of fluid responsiveness during COVID-19 pandemic: what are the remaining choices? |
title_sort | evaluation of fluid responsiveness during covid-19 pandemic: what are the remaining choices? |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7246295/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32451626 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00540-020-02801-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hasaninahmed evaluationoffluidresponsivenessduringcovid19pandemicwhataretheremainingchoices AT mostafamaha evaluationoffluidresponsivenessduringcovid19pandemicwhataretheremainingchoices |