Importance:
Fluid overload occurring as a consequence of overly aggressive fluid resuscitation may adversely affect outcome in hemodynamically unstable critically ill patients. Therefore, following the initial fluid resuscitation, it is important to identify which patients will benefit from further fluid administration.
Objective:
To identify predictors of fluid responsiveness in hemodynamically unstable patients with signs of inadequate organ perfusion.
Data Sources And Study Selection:
Search of MEDLINE and EMBASE (1966 to June 2016) and reference lists from retrieved articles, previous reviews, and physical examination textbooks for studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of tests to predict fluid responsiveness in hemodynamically unstable adult patients who were defined as having refractory hypotension, signs of organ hypoperfusion, or both. Fluid responsiveness was defined as an increase in cardiac output following intravenous fluid administration.
Data Extraction:
Two authors independently abstracted data (sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios [LRs]) and assessed methodological quality. A bivariate mixed-effects binary regression model was used to pool the sensitivities, specificities, and LRs across studies.
Results:
A total of 50 studies (N = 2260 patients) were analyzed. In all studies, indices were measured before assessment of fluid responsiveness. The mean prevalence of fluid responsiveness was 50% (95% CI, 42%-56%). Findings on physical examination were not predictive of fluid responsiveness with LRs and 95% CIs for each finding crossing 1.0. A low central venous pressure (CVP) (mean threshold <8 mm Hg) was associated with fluid responsiveness (positive LR, 2.6 [95% CI, 1.4-4.6]; pooled specificity, 76%), but a CVP greater than the threshold made fluid responsiveness less likely (negative LR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.39-0.65]; pooled sensitivity, 62%). Respiratory variation in vena cava diameter measured by ultrasound (distensibility index >15%) predicted fluid responsiveness in a subgroup of patients without spontaneous respiratory efforts (positive LR, 5.3 [95% CI, 1.1-27]; pooled specificity, 85%). Patients with less vena cava distensibility were not as likely to be fluid responsive (negative LR, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.08-0.87]; pooled sensitivity, 77%). Augmentation of cardiac output or related parameters following passive leg raising predicted fluid responsiveness (positive LR, 11 [95% CI, 7.6-17]; pooled specificity, 92%). Conversely, the lack of an increase in cardiac output with passive leg raising identified patients unlikely to be fluid responsive (negative LR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.07-0.22]; pooled sensitivity, 88%).
Conclusions And Relevance:
Passive leg raising followed by measurement of cardiac output or related parameters may be the most useful test for predicting fluid responsiveness in hemodynamically unstable adults. The usefulness of respiratory variation in the vena cava requires confirmatory studies.
Citing Articles
Navigating the Waves of Critical Care Echocardiography: Unveiling its Role, Advantages, and Pitfalls in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit.
Darlington A, Hillerson D, Ternus B, Mankad S
Curr Cardiol Rep. 2025; 27(1):25.
PMID: 39821574
DOI: 10.1007/s11886-024-02176-6.
Changes in central venous pressure during a fluid challenge have limited value for guiding fluid therapy.
de Oliveira P, da Silva Ramos F, Tomotani D, Machado F, de Freitas F
Crit Care Sci. 2024; 36:e20240073en.
PMID: 39630827
PMC: 11634234.
DOI: 10.62675/2965-2774.20240073-en.
A nursing-led sepsis response team guiding resuscitation with point-of-care ultrasound: A review and model for improving bundle compliance while individualizing sepsis care.
Nunnally J, Ko S, Ugale K, Lowe T, Bond J, Kenny J
SAGE Open Med. 2024; 12:20503121241290378.
PMID: 39526100
PMC: 11549707.
DOI: 10.1177/20503121241290378.
Assessment of the relationship between central venous pressure waveform and the severity of tricuspid valve regurgitation using data science.
Akabane S, Asamoto M, Azuma S, Otsuji M, Uchida K
Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):24839.
PMID: 39438502
PMC: 11496678.
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-74890-8.
Sonographic findings using the SAFE-A protocol in pre- and post-hemodialysis patients.
Rabahi M, Polito M, Takaoka L, Conte M, Colares P
Ultrasound J. 2024; 16(1):41.
PMID: 39190180
PMC: 11349959.
DOI: 10.1186/s13089-024-00390-5.
Exploring thirst incidence and risk factors in patients undergoing general anesthesia after extubation based on ERAS principles: a cross sectional study.
Zeng Z, Lu X, Sun Y, Xiao Z
BMC Anesthesiol. 2024; 24(1):287.
PMID: 39138388
PMC: 11321221.
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-024-02676-6.
Prediction of fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients with hemodynamic stability: a prospective repeated-measures study.
Kim Y, Lee J
Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):14451.
PMID: 38914634
PMC: 11196262.
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-65554-8.
A Review of Fluid Bolus in Critically Ill Patients After Initial Volume Expansion: Bayesian Probability Analysis and Case Studies.
Patel S, Puri N, Hussain S, Rachoin J, Green A
Cureus. 2024; 16(5):e59517.
PMID: 38826945
PMC: 11144048.
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.59517.
Physiological changes after fluid bolus therapy in cardiac surgery patients: A propensity score matched case-control study.
Faltys M, Serpa Neto A, Cioccari L
Crit Care Resusc. 2024; 26(1):32-40.
PMID: 38690188
PMC: 11056405.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ccrj.2023.11.005.
Understanding How Clinicians Personalize Fluid and Vasopressor Decisions in Early Sepsis Management.
Munroe E, Weinstein J, Gershengorn H, Karlic K, Seelye S, Sjoding M
JAMA Netw Open. 2024; 7(4):e247480.
PMID: 38639934
PMC: 11031682.
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.7480.
Group-Based Trajectory Modeling of Fluid Balance in Elderly Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke: Analysis from Multicenter ICUs.
Tang J, Wu C, Zhong Z
Neurol Ther. 2024; 13(3):749-761.
PMID: 38635141
PMC: 11136917.
DOI: 10.1007/s40120-024-00612-x.
Carotid Blood Flow as a Surrogate for Pulse Contour Analysis in Assessment of Fluid Responsiveness: A Prospective, Observational, Single-Centre Study (Contour Study).
Karmarkar A, Pal D, Govil D, Patel S, Kn J, Harne R
Cureus. 2024; 16(1):e53253.
PMID: 38435954
PMC: 10904354.
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.53253.
Dynamic monitoring tools for patients admitted to the emergency department with circulatory failure: narrative review with panel-based recommendations.
Douglas I, Elwan M, Najarro M, Romagnoli S
Eur J Emerg Med. 2024; 31(2):98-107.
PMID: 38364037
PMC: 11232941.
DOI: 10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001103.
Improving the precision of shock resuscitation by predicting fluid responsiveness with machine learning and arterial blood pressure waveform data.
Gupta C, Basu D, Williams T, Neff L, Johnson M, Patel N
Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):2227.
PMID: 38278825
PMC: 10817926.
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-50120-5.
Rethinking Fluid Responsiveness during Septic Shock: Ameliorate Accuracy of Noninvasive Cardiac Output Measurements through Evaluation of Arterial Biomechanical Properties.
Papaioannou V, Papaioannou T
J Pers Med. 2024; 14(1).
PMID: 38248770
PMC: 10817669.
DOI: 10.3390/jpm14010070.
Inferior Vena Caval Measures Do Not Correlate with Carotid Artery Corrected Flow Time Change Measured Using a Wireless Doppler Patch in Healthy Volunteers.
Kenny J, Prager R, Rola P, McCulloch G, Atwi S, Munding C
Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(23).
PMID: 38066832
PMC: 10706625.
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13233591.
[Guideline-conform treatment of sepsis].
Schmoch T, Weigand M, Brenner T
Anaesthesiologie. 2023; 73(1):4-16.
PMID: 37950017
DOI: 10.1007/s00101-023-01354-5.
Monitoring Macro- and Microcirculation in the Critically Ill: A Narrative Review.
Muzaffar S, Pradhan A, Siddiqui S, Roy S, Suresh T
Avicenna J Med. 2023; 13(3):138-150.
PMID: 37799180
PMC: 10550369.
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1772175.
Processing Ultrasound Scans of the Inferior Vena Cava: Techniques and Applications.
Policastro P, Mesin L
Bioengineering (Basel). 2023; 10(9).
PMID: 37760178
PMC: 10525913.
DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering10091076.
Beyond fluid responsiveness: the concept of fluid tolerance and its potential implication in hemodynamic management.
Melo R, Santos M, da Silva Ramos F
Crit Care Sci. 2023; 35(2):226-229.
PMID: 37712813
PMC: 10406410.
DOI: 10.5935/2965-2774.20230012-en.