» Articles » PMID: 30519590

Impact of Intravenous Fluid Challenge Infusion Time on Macrocirculation and Endothelial Glycocalyx in Surgical and Critically Ill Patients

Overview
Journal Biomed Res Int
Publisher Wiley
Date 2018 Dec 7
PMID 30519590
Citations 16
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The fluid challenge (FC) is a well-established test of preload reserve. Only limited data exist in regard to the FC efficacy based on infusion time. Slow administration may be associated with lack of effect based on fluid redistribution and external conditions changes. On the contrary, fast administration may lead to brisk fluid overload and damage to the endothelium and endothelial glycocalyx (EG). The aim of this trial was to compare the FC infusion time on its hemodynamic effects and EG. Prospective randomized single-center trial of fast (5-10 minutes) versus slow (20-30 minutes) administration of 500ml balanced crystalloid FC in spinal surgery (cohort OR) and septic shock (cohort SEP) patients. Hemodynamic response was assessed using standard monitoring and blood flow measurements; damage to EG was assessed using the perfused boundary region (PBR) via intravital microscopy monitoring in the sublingual region within relevant time points ranging up to 120 minutes. Overall, 66 FCs in 50 surgical and 16 septic patients were assessed. Fluid administration was associated with increase of PBR in general (1.9 (1.8-2.1) vs. 2.0 (1.8-2.2); p= 0.008). These changes were transient in OR cohort whereas they were long-lasting in septic fluid responders. The rate of fluid responsiveness after fast versus slow administration was comparable in global population (15 (47%) vs. 17 (50%); p=0.801) as well as in both cohorts. Fluid challenge administration was associated with increased PBR (and presumable EG volume changes) which normalized within the next 60 minutes in surgical patients but remained impeded in septic fluid responders. The fluid responsiveness rate after fast and slow FC was comparable, but fast administration tended to induce higher, though transient, response in blood pressure.

Citing Articles

Fluid bolus increases plasma hyaluronan concentration compared to follow-up strategy without a bolus in oliguric intensive care unit patients.

Serlo M, Inkinen N, Lakkisto P, Valkonen M, Pulkkinen A, Selander T Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):20808.

PMID: 39242877 PMC: 11379687. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-71670-2.


Venous congestion in septic shock quantified with point-of-care ultrasound: a pilot prospective multicentre cohort study.

Prager R, Arntfield R, Wong M, Ball I, Lewis K, Rochwerg B Can J Anaesth. 2024; 71(5):640-649.

PMID: 38548949 DOI: 10.1007/s12630-024-02717-1.


Association between intravenous fluid administration and endothelial glycocalyx shedding in humans: a systematic review.

Sukudom S, Smart L, Macdonald S Intensive Care Med Exp. 2024; 12(1):16.

PMID: 38403742 PMC: 10894789. DOI: 10.1186/s40635-024-00602-1.


Effect of intravenous fluid volume on biomarkers of endothelial glycocalyx shedding and inflammation during initial resuscitation of sepsis.

Macdonald S, Bosio E, Keijzers G, Burrows S, Hibbs M, ODonoghue H Intensive Care Med Exp. 2023; 11(1):21.

PMID: 37062769 PMC: 10106534. DOI: 10.1186/s40635-023-00508-4.


Pressure response to fluid challenge administration in hypotensive surgical patients: a post-hoc pharmacodynamic analysis of five datasets.

Messina A, Colombo D, Lionetti G, Calabro L, Negri K, Robba C J Clin Monit Comput. 2022; 37(2):449-459.

PMID: 36197548 DOI: 10.1007/s10877-022-00918-x.


References
1.
Tatara T . Context-sensitive fluid therapy in critical illness. J Intensive Care. 2016; 4:20. PMC: 4793702. DOI: 10.1186/s40560-016-0150-7. View

2.
Marik P, Bellomo R . A rational approach to fluid therapy in sepsis. Br J Anaesth. 2015; 116(3):339-49. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aev349. View

3.
Gorshkov A, Klimushina M, Boytsov S, Kots A, Gumanova N . Increase in perfused boundary region of endothelial glycocalyx is associated with higher prevalence of ischemic heart disease and lesions of microcirculation and vascular wall. Microcirculation. 2018; 25(4):e12454. DOI: 10.1111/micc.12454. View

4.
Cecconi M, Hofer C, Teboul J, Pettila V, Wilkman E, Molnar Z . Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: A global inception cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2015; 41(9):1529-37. PMC: 4550653. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-015-3850-x. View

5.
Hahn R, Lyons G . The half-life of infusion fluids: An educational review. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2016; 33(7):475-82. PMC: 4890831. DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000436. View