Hemodynamic effects of different fluid volumes for a fluid challenge in septic shock patients.
10.1097/CM9.0000000000001919
- VernacularTitle:Hemodynamic effects of different fluid volumes for a fluid challenge in septic shock patients
- Author:
Ting YANG
1
;
Li WENG
;
Wei JIANG
;
Shan LI
;
Bin DU
Author Information
1. Medical Intensive Care Unit, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Cardiac Output/physiology*;
Fluid Therapy;
Gelatin/therapeutic use*;
Hemodynamics;
Humans;
Shock, Septic/therapy*
- From:
Chinese Medical Journal
2022;135(6):672-680
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND:It is still unclear what the minimal infusion volume is to effectively predict fluid responsiveness. This study was designed to explore the minimal infusion volume to effectively predict fluid responsiveness in septic shock patients. Hemodynamic effects of fluid administration on arterial load were observed and added values of effective arterial elastance (Ea) in fluid resuscitation were assessed.
METHODS:Intensive care unit septic shock patients with indwelling pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) received five sequential intravenous boluses of 100 mL 4% gelatin. Cardiac output (CO) was measured with PAC before and after each bolus. Fluid responsiveness was defined as an increase in CO >10% after 500 mL fluid infusion.
RESULTS:Forty-seven patients were included and 35 (74.5%) patients were fluid responders. CO increasing >5.2% after a 200 mL fluid challenge (FC) provided an improved detection of fluid responsiveness, with a specificity of 80.0% and a sensitivity of 91.7%. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.84-1.00, P < 0.001). Fluid administration induced a decrease in Ea from 2.23 (1.46-2.78) mmHg/mL to 1.83 (1.34-2.44) mmHg/mL (P = 0.002), especially for fluid responders in whom arterial pressure did not increase. Notably, the baseline Ea was able to detect the fluid responsiveness with an AUC of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.59-0.86, P < 0.001), whereas Ea failed to predict the pressure response to FC with an AUC of 0.50 (95% CI: 0.33-0.67, P = 0.086).
CONCLUSION:In septic shock patients, a minimal volume of 200 mL 4% gelatin could reliably detect fluid responders. Fluid administration reduced Ea even when CO increased. The loss of arterial load might be the reason for patients who increased their CO without pressure responsiveness. Moreover, a high level of Ea before FC was able to predict fluid responsiveness rather than to detect the pressure responsiveness.
TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04515511.
