Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy.
PLoS One. 2023 May 18;18(5):e0285935. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285935. eCollection 2023.
The correct identification of the appropriateness of fluid administration is important for the treatment of critically ill patients. Static and dynamic indices used to identify fluid responsiveness have been developed throughout the years, nonetheless fluid responsiveness does not indicate that fluid administration is appropriate, and indexes to evaluate appropriateness of fluid administration are lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate if central venous pressure (CVP) anddynamic indices could correctly identify fluid appropriateness for critically ill patients.
Data from 31 ICU patients, for a total of 53 observations, was included in the analysis. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on the appropriateness of fluid administration. Fluid appropriateness was defined in presence of a low cardiac index (< 2.5 l/min/m2) without any sign of fluid overload, as assessed by global end-diastolic volume index, extravascular lung water index or pulmonary artery occlusion pressure.
For 10 patients, fluid administration was deemed appropriate, while for 21 patients it was deemed inappropriate. Central venous pressure was not different between the two cohorts (mean CVP 11 (4) mmHg in the fluid inappropriate group, 12 (4) mmHg in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.58). The same is true for pulse pressure variation (median PPV 5 [2, 9] % in the fluid inappropriate group, 4 [3, 13] % in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.57), for inferior vena cava distensibility (mean inferior vena cava distensibility 24 (14) % in the fluid inappropriate group, 22 (16) % in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.75) and for changes in end tidal carbon dioxide during a passive leg raising test (median d.ETCO2 1.5 [0.0, 2.0]% in the fluid inappropriate group, 1.0 [0.0, 2.0] % in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.98). There was no association between static and dynamic indices and fluid appropriateness.
Central venous pressure, pulse pressure variation, changes in end tidal carbon dioxide during a passive leg raising test, inferior vena cava distensibility were not associated with fluid appropriateness in our cohorts.
正确识别输液的适宜性对于危重症患者的治疗至关重要。多年来,已经开发出用于识别液体反应性的静态和动态指标,但液体反应性并不表示输液是合适的,并且缺乏评估输液适宜性的指标。本研究旨在评估中心静脉压(CVP)和动态指标是否可以正确识别危重症患者输液的适宜性。
共纳入 31 名 ICU 患者的 53 次观察数据进行分析。根据输液的适宜性将患者分为两组。输液适宜性定义为存在低心指数(<2.5 l/min/m2)而无任何液体超负荷迹象,通过全心舒张末期容积指数、血管外肺水指数或肺动脉闭塞压来评估。
10 例患者的输液被认为是适宜的,而 21 例患者的输液被认为是不适宜的。两组间 CVP 无差异(液体不适宜组的平均 CVP 为 11(4)mmHg,液体适宜组为 12(4)mmHg,p=0.58)。脉压变异度(液体不适宜组的中位 PPV 为 5[2,9]%,液体适宜组为 4[3,13]%,p=0.57)、下腔静脉顺应性(液体不适宜组的平均下腔静脉顺应性为 24(14)%,液体适宜组为 22(16)%,p=0.75)和被动抬腿试验中呼气末二氧化碳的变化(液体不适宜组的中位 d.ETCO2 为 1.5[0.0,2.0]%,液体适宜组为 1.0[0.0,2.0]%,p=0.98)也无差异。静态和动态指标与输液适宜性之间均无相关性。
在我们的研究队列中,中心静脉压、脉压变异度、被动抬腿试验中呼气末二氧化碳的变化、下腔静脉顺应性与输液适宜性无关。