Cargando…

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 2...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Messina, Antonio, Calabrò, Lorenzo, Pugliese, Luca, Lulja, Aulona, Sopuch, Alexandra, Rosalba, Daniela, Morenghi, Emanuela, Hernandez, Glenn, Monnet, Xavier, Cecconi, Maurizio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9210670/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35729632
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-022-04056-3
_version_ 1784730204749430784
author Messina, Antonio
Calabrò, Lorenzo
Pugliese, Luca
Lulja, Aulona
Sopuch, Alexandra
Rosalba, Daniela
Morenghi, Emanuela
Hernandez, Glenn
Monnet, Xavier
Cecconi, Maurizio
author_facet Messina, Antonio
Calabrò, Lorenzo
Pugliese, Luca
Lulja, Aulona
Sopuch, Alexandra
Rosalba, Daniela
Morenghi, Emanuela
Hernandez, Glenn
Monnet, Xavier
Cecconi, Maurizio
author_sort Messina, Antonio
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9210670
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92106702022-06-22 Fluid challenge in critically ill patients receiving haemodynamic monitoring: a systematic review and comparison of two decades Messina, Antonio Calabrò, Lorenzo Pugliese, Luca Lulja, Aulona Sopuch, Alexandra Rosalba, Daniela Morenghi, Emanuela Hernandez, Glenn Monnet, Xavier Cecconi, Maurizio Crit Care Review 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. BioMed Central 2022-06-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9210670/ /pubmed/35729632 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-022-04056-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://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.
spellingShingle Review
Messina, Antonio
Calabrò, Lorenzo
Pugliese, Luca
Lulja, Aulona
Sopuch, Alexandra
Rosalba, Daniela
Morenghi, Emanuela
Hernandez, Glenn
Monnet, Xavier
Cecconi, Maurizio
Fluid challenge in critically ill patients receiving haemodynamic monitoring: a systematic review and comparison of two decades
title Fluid challenge in critically ill patients receiving haemodynamic monitoring: a systematic review and comparison of two decades
title_full Fluid challenge in critically ill patients receiving haemodynamic monitoring: a systematic review and comparison of two decades
title_fullStr Fluid challenge in critically ill patients receiving haemodynamic monitoring: a systematic review and comparison of two decades
title_full_unstemmed Fluid challenge in critically ill patients receiving haemodynamic monitoring: a systematic review and comparison of two decades
title_short Fluid challenge in critically ill patients receiving haemodynamic monitoring: a systematic review and comparison of two decades
title_sort fluid challenge in critically ill patients receiving haemodynamic monitoring: a systematic review and comparison of two decades
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9210670/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35729632
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-022-04056-3
work_keys_str_mv AT messinaantonio fluidchallengeincriticallyillpatientsreceivinghaemodynamicmonitoringasystematicreviewandcomparisonoftwodecades
AT calabrolorenzo fluidchallengeincriticallyillpatientsreceivinghaemodynamicmonitoringasystematicreviewandcomparisonoftwodecades
AT puglieseluca fluidchallengeincriticallyillpatientsreceivinghaemodynamicmonitoringasystematicreviewandcomparisonoftwodecades
AT luljaaulona fluidchallengeincriticallyillpatientsreceivinghaemodynamicmonitoringasystematicreviewandcomparisonoftwodecades
AT sopuchalexandra fluidchallengeincriticallyillpatientsreceivinghaemodynamicmonitoringasystematicreviewandcomparisonoftwodecades
AT rosalbadaniela fluidchallengeincriticallyillpatientsreceivinghaemodynamicmonitoringasystematicreviewandcomparisonoftwodecades
AT morenghiemanuela fluidchallengeincriticallyillpatientsreceivinghaemodynamicmonitoringasystematicreviewandcomparisonoftwodecades
AT hernandezglenn fluidchallengeincriticallyillpatientsreceivinghaemodynamicmonitoringasystematicreviewandcomparisonoftwodecades
AT monnetxavier fluidchallengeincriticallyillpatientsreceivinghaemodynamicmonitoringasystematicreviewandcomparisonoftwodecades
AT cecconimaurizio fluidchallengeincriticallyillpatientsreceivinghaemodynamicmonitoringasystematicreviewandcomparisonoftwodecades