Shock Management Without Formal Fluid Responsiveness Assessment: A Retrospective Analysis of Fluid Responsiveness and Its Outcomes

Overview

Journal J Acute Med

Date 2022 Feb 14

PMID 35155089

Authors

Andrew Hong

Nicholas Villano

William Toppen

Montoya Elizabeth Aquije

David Berlin

Maxime Cannesson

Igor Barjaktarevic

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: In order to quantify fluid administration and evaluate the clinical consequences of conservative fluid management without hemodynamic monitoring in undifferentiated shock, we analyzed previously collected data from a study of carotid Doppler monitoring as a predictor of fluid responsiveness (FR).

Methods: This study was a retrospective analysis of data collected from a single tertiary academic center from a previous study. Seventy-four patients were included for post-hoc analysis, and 52 of them were identified as fluid responsive (cardiac output increase > 10% with passive leg raise) according to NICOMTM bioreactance monitoring (Cheetah Medical, Newton Center, MA, USA). Treating teams provided standard of care conservative fluid resuscitation but were blinded to independently performed FR testing results. Outcomes were compared between fluid responsive and fluid non-responsive patients. Primary outcome measures were volume fluids administered and net fluid balance 24- and 72-hour post-FR assessment. Secondary outcome measures included change in vasopressor requirements, mean peak lactate levels, length of hospital/intensive care unit stay, acute respiratory failure, hemodialysis requirement, and durations of vasopressors and mechanical ventilation.

Results: Mean fluids administered within 72 hours were similar between fluid non-responsive and fluid responsive patients (139 mL/kg [95% confidence interval [CI]: 102.00-175.00] vs. 136 mL/kg [95% CI: 113.00-158.00], p = 0.92, respectively). We observed an insignificant trend toward higher 28-day mortality among fluid non-responsive patients (36% vs. 19%, p = 0.14). Volume of fluids administered significantly correlated with adverse outcomes such as increased hemodialysis requirements (32 patients, 43%), (odds ratio [OR] = 1.7200, p = 0.0018). Subgroup analysis suggested administering ≥ 30 mL/kg fluids to fluid responsive patients had a trend toward increased mortality (25% vs. 0%, p = 0.09) and a significant increase in hemodialysis (55% vs. 17%, p = 0.024).

Conclusions: Without formal FR assessment, similar amounts of total fluids were administered in both fluid responsive and non-responsive patients. As greater volumes of intravenous fluids administered were associated with adverse outcomes, we suggest that dedicated FR assessment may be a beneficial utility in early shock resuscitation.

References

Barjaktarevic I, Toppen W, Hu S, Aquije Montoya E, Ong S, Buhr R . Ultrasound Assessment of the Change in Carotid Corrected Flow Time in Fluid Responsiveness in Undifferentiated Shock. Crit Care Med. 2018; 46(11):e1040-e1046. PMC: 6774608. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003356. View

Boyd J, Forbes J, Nakada T, Walley K, Russell J . Fluid resuscitation in septic shock: a positive fluid balance and elevated central venous pressure are associated with increased mortality. Crit Care Med. 2010; 39(2):259-65. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181feeb15. View

Jalil B, Cavallazzi R . Predicting fluid responsiveness: A review of literature and a guide for the clinician. Am J Emerg Med. 2018; 36(11):2093-2102. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2018.08.037. View

Peake S, Delaney A, Bailey M, Bellomo R, Cameron P, Cooper D . Goal-directed resuscitation for patients with early septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371(16):1496-506. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1404380. View

Marik P, Cavallazzi R . Does the central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? An updated meta-analysis and a plea for some common sense. Crit Care Med. 2013; 41(7):1774-81. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31828a25fd. View

Peerapornratana S, Manrique-Caballero C, Gomez H, Kellum J . Acute kidney injury from sepsis: current concepts, epidemiology, pathophysiology, prevention and treatment. Kidney Int. 2019; 96(5):1083-1099. PMC: 6920048. DOI: 10.1016/j.kint.2019.05.026. View

De Backer D, Vincent J . Should we measure the central venous pressure to guide fluid management? Ten answers to 10 questions. Crit Care. 2018; 22(1):43. PMC: 5824587. DOI: 10.1186/s13054-018-1959-3. View

Ostermann M, Oudemans-van Straaten H, Forni L . Fluid overload and acute kidney injury: cause or consequence?. Crit Care. 2015; 19:443. PMC: 4699346. DOI: 10.1186/s13054-015-1163-7. View

Marik P, Linde-Zwirble W, Bittner E, Sahatjian J, Hansell D . Fluid administration in severe sepsis and septic shock, patterns and outcomes: an analysis of a large national database. Intensive Care Med. 2017; 43(5):625-632. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-016-4675-y. View

10.

Ehrman R, Gallien J, Smith R, Akers K, Malik A, Harrison N . Resuscitation Guided by Volume Responsiveness Does Not Reduce Mortality in Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis. Crit Care Explor. 2020; 1(5):e0015. PMC: 7063966. DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000015. View

11.

Jakovljevic D, Trenell M, MacGowan G . Bioimpedance and bioreactance methods for monitoring cardiac output. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2014; 28(4):381-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpa.2014.09.003. View

12.

Elwan M, Roshdy A, Elsharkawy E, Eltahan S, Coats T . The haemodynamic dilemma in emergency care: Is fluid responsiveness the answer? A systematic review. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2017; 25(1):25. PMC: 5339987. DOI: 10.1186/s13049-017-0370-4. View

13.

Coresh J, Turin T, Matsushita K, Sang Y, Ballew S, Appel L . Decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate and subsequent risk of end-stage renal disease and mortality. JAMA. 2014; 311(24):2518-2531. PMC: 4172342. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.6634. View

14.

Marik P, Byrne L, van Haren F . Fluid resuscitation in sepsis: the great 30 mL per kg hoax. J Thorac Dis. 2020; 12(Suppl 1):S37-S47. PMC: 7024756. DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2019.12.84. View

15.

Mouncey P, Osborn T, Sarah Power G, Harrison D, Zia Sadique M, Grieve R . Protocolised Management In Sepsis (ProMISe): a multicentre randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early, goal-directed, protocolised resuscitation for emerging septic shock. Health Technol Assess. 2015; 19(97):i-xxv, 1-150. PMC: 4781482. DOI: 10.3310/hta19970. View

16.

Benomar B, Ouattara A, Estagnasie P, Brusset A, Squara P . Fluid responsiveness predicted by noninvasive bioreactance-based passive leg raise test. Intensive Care Med. 2010; 36(11):1875-81. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-010-1990-6. View

17.

Monnet X, Marik P, Teboul J . Prediction of fluid responsiveness: an update. Ann Intensive Care. 2016; 6(1):111. PMC: 5114218. DOI: 10.1186/s13613-016-0216-7. View

18.

Jones A, Shapiro N, Trzeciak S, Arnold R, Claremont H, Kline J . Lactate clearance vs central venous oxygen saturation as goals of early sepsis therapy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2010; 303(8):739-46. PMC: 2918907. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.158. View

19.

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

20.

Ostermann M, Liu K, Kashani K . Fluid Management in Acute Kidney Injury. Chest. 2019; 156(3):594-603. DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.04.004. View