Changes in central venous pressure during a fluid challenge have limited value for guiding fluid therapy.

Critical care science Pub Date : 2024-12-02 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.62675/2965-2774.20240073-en
Priscilla Souza de Oliveira, Fernando José da Silva Ramos, Daniere Yurie Vieira Tomotani, Flávia Ribeiro Machado, Flávio Geraldo Rezende de Freitas
{"title":"Changes in central venous pressure during a fluid challenge have limited value for guiding fluid therapy.","authors":"Priscilla Souza de Oliveira, Fernando José da Silva Ramos, Daniere Yurie Vieira Tomotani, Flávia Ribeiro Machado, Flávio Geraldo Rezende de Freitas","doi":"10.62675/2965-2774.20240073-en","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate whether changes in central venous pressure during fluid expansion and baseline cyclic respiratory variation in the central venous pressure amplitude (RespCVP) curve could be used to discriminate between fluid responders and nonresponders.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective observational study included critically ill adult patients who underwent fluid expansion in the form of a fluid bolus or fluid challenge with crystalloids. All patients were under mechanical ventilation and adequately sedated. We determined the central venous pressure at baseline (CVPT0) and the changes at 5 (ΔCVPT5), 10 (ΔCVPT10) and 15 (ΔCVPT15) minutes during fluid infusion. We also measured the RespCVP at baseline. Fluid responsiveness was defined as a cardiac index increase of ≥ 15%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 30 patients (11 responders and 19 nonresponders). The CVPT0 and the changes after a fluid challenge at all three time points did not adequately predict fluid responsiveness, as determined by their area under the curve values (CVPT0: 0.70, (95%CI: 0.49 - 0.90; ΔCVPT5: 0.78, (95%CI: 0.57 - 0.99; ΔCVPT10: 0.63, (95%CI: 0.39 - 0.88; ΔCVPT15: 0.68, ((95%CI: 0.45 - 0.92). The RespCVP at baseline also had a poor performance (area under the curve: 0.70; 95%CI: 0.50 - 0.91).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Changes in central venous pressure have limited value in predicting fluid responsiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":72721,"journal":{"name":"Critical care science","volume":"36 ","pages":"e20240073en"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11634234/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical care science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.62675/2965-2774.20240073-en","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate whether changes in central venous pressure during fluid expansion and baseline cyclic respiratory variation in the central venous pressure amplitude (RespCVP) curve could be used to discriminate between fluid responders and nonresponders.

Methods: This prospective observational study included critically ill adult patients who underwent fluid expansion in the form of a fluid bolus or fluid challenge with crystalloids. All patients were under mechanical ventilation and adequately sedated. We determined the central venous pressure at baseline (CVPT0) and the changes at 5 (ΔCVPT5), 10 (ΔCVPT10) and 15 (ΔCVPT15) minutes during fluid infusion. We also measured the RespCVP at baseline. Fluid responsiveness was defined as a cardiac index increase of ≥ 15%.

Results: The study included 30 patients (11 responders and 19 nonresponders). The CVPT0 and the changes after a fluid challenge at all three time points did not adequately predict fluid responsiveness, as determined by their area under the curve values (CVPT0: 0.70, (95%CI: 0.49 - 0.90; ΔCVPT5: 0.78, (95%CI: 0.57 - 0.99; ΔCVPT10: 0.63, (95%CI: 0.39 - 0.88; ΔCVPT15: 0.68, ((95%CI: 0.45 - 0.92). The RespCVP at baseline also had a poor performance (area under the curve: 0.70; 95%CI: 0.50 - 0.91).

Conclusion: Changes in central venous pressure have limited value in predicting fluid responsiveness.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在液体刺激期间中心静脉压的变化对指导液体治疗的价值有限。
目的:评价液体扩张过程中中心静脉压的变化和中心静脉压振幅(RespCVP)曲线的基线循环呼吸变化是否可以用于区分液体反应者和无反应者。方法:这项前瞻性观察性研究纳入了危重症成年患者,他们以液体丸的形式进行液体膨胀或用晶体物进行液体刺激。所有患者均在机械通气和适当镇静下。我们测定了基线中心静脉压(CVPT0)和输液过程中5 (ΔCVPT5)、10 (ΔCVPT10)和15 (ΔCVPT15)分钟的变化。我们还测量了基线时的RespCVP。液体反应性定义为心脏指数升高≥15%。结果:研究纳入30例患者(11例有反应,19例无反应)。CVPT0和所有三个时间点的流体冲击后的变化并不能充分预测流体响应性,这是由曲线下的面积决定的(CVPT0: 0.70, 95%CI: 0.49 - 0.90;Δcvpt5: 0.78, 95%ci: 0.57 - 0.99;Δcvpt10: 0.63, 95%ci: 0.39 - 0.88;Δcvpt15: 0.68, (95%ci: 0.45 - 0.92)。基线时的RespCVP也表现不佳(曲线下面积:0.70;95%ci: 0.50 - 0.91)。结论:中心静脉压变化对预测液体反应性的价值有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A clinical guide to assess the immune response to sepsis: from bench to bedside. Comparison of the effectiveness of awake-prone positioning and high-flow nasal oxygen in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure between different waves. Long-term mortality of Dutch COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care medicine: a retrospective analysis from a national quality registry. To: Goal-directed therapy guided by the FloTrac sensor in major surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Andexanet alfa for the management of severe bleeding: what should critical care physicians know about it?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1