Cecconi Maurizio, Hofer Christoph, Teboul Jean-Louis, Pettila Ville, Wilkman Erika, Molnar Zsolt, Della Rocca Giorgio, Aldecoa Cesar, Artigas Antonio, Jog Sameer, Sander Michael, Spies Claudia, Lefrant Jean-Yves, De Backer Daniel
Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, St George's Hospital and Medical School, London, SW17 0QT, UK,
Intensive Care Med. 2015 Sep;41(9):1529-37. doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-3850-x. Epub 2015 Jul 11.
Fluid challenges (FCs) are one of the most commonly used therapies in critically ill patients and represent the cornerstone of hemodynamic management in intensive care units. There are clear benefits and harms from fluid therapy. Limited data on the indication, type, amount and rate of an FC in critically ill patients exist in the literature. The primary aim was to evaluate how physicians conduct FCs in terms of type, volume, and rate of given fluid; the secondary aim was to evaluate variables used to trigger an FC and to compare the proportion of patients receiving further fluid administration based on the response to the FC.
This was an observational study conducted in ICUs around the world. Each participating unit entered a maximum of 20 patients with one FC.
2213 patients were enrolled and analyzed in the study. The median [interquartile range] amount of fluid given during an FC was 500 ml (500-1000). The median time was 24 min (40-60 min), and the median rate of FC was 1000 [500-1333] ml/h. The main indication for FC was hypotension in 1211 (59%, CI 57-61%). In 43% (CI 41-45%) of the cases no hemodynamic variable was used. Static markers of preload were used in 785 of 2213 cases (36%, CI 34-37%). Dynamic indices of preload responsiveness were used in 483 of 2213 cases (22%, CI 20-24%). No safety variable for the FC was used in 72% (CI 70-74%) of the cases. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who received further fluids after the FC between those with a positive, with an uncertain or with a negatively judged response.
The current practice and evaluation of FC in critically ill patients are highly variable. Prediction of fluid responsiveness is not used routinely, safety limits are rarely used, and information from previous failed FCs is not always taken into account.
液体冲击治疗(FCs)是重症患者最常用的治疗方法之一,是重症监护病房血流动力学管理的基石。液体治疗有明确的益处和危害。关于重症患者FC的适应证、类型、剂量和速度的资料有限。主要目的是评估医生在给予液体的类型、容量和速度方面如何进行FC;次要目的是评估用于触发FC的变量,并比较根据FC反应接受进一步液体输注的患者比例。
这是一项在全球重症监护病房进行的观察性研究。每个参与单位最多纳入20例接受一次FC的患者。
2213例患者纳入本研究并进行分析。FC期间给予的液体量中位数[四分位间距]为500 ml(500 - 1000)。中位数时间为24分钟(40 - 60分钟),FC的中位数速度为1000[500 - 1333]ml/h。FC的主要适应证是低血压,共1211例(59%,CI 57 - 61%)。43%(CI 41 - 45%)的病例未使用血流动力学变量。2213例中的785例(36%,CI 34 - 37%)使用了前负荷的静态指标。2213例中的483例(22%,CI 20 - 24%)使用了前负荷反应性的动态指标。72%(CI 70 - 74%)的病例未使用FC的安全变量。FC反应为阳性、不确定或阴性的患者在FC后接受进一步液体治疗的比例无统计学显著差异。
目前重症患者FC的实践和评估差异很大。液体反应性的预测未常规使用,安全限度很少使用,且之前失败的FC信息并非总是被考虑在内。