Assessing Fluid Responsiveness Using Noninvasive Hemodynamic Monitoring in Pediatric Shock: A Review

IF 0.5 Q4 PEDIATRICS Journal of Pediatric Intensive Care Pub Date : 2023-02-18 DOI:10.1055/s-0043-1771347
N. Shah, Radha B. Patel, Pranali Awadhare, Tracy McCallin, U. Bhalala
{"title":"Assessing Fluid Responsiveness Using Noninvasive Hemodynamic Monitoring in Pediatric Shock: A Review","authors":"N. Shah, Radha B. Patel, Pranali Awadhare, Tracy McCallin, U. Bhalala","doi":"10.1055/s-0043-1771347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring devices have been introduced to better quantify fluid responsiveness in pediatric shock; however, current evidence for their use is inconsistent. This review aims to examine available noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring techniques for assessing fluid responsiveness in children with shock. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar, examining published studies until December 31, 2022. Articles were identified using initial keywords: [noninvasive] AND [fluid responsiveness]. Inclusion criteria included age 0 to 18, use of noninvasive techniques, and the emergency department (ED) or pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) settings. Abstracts, review papers, articles investigating intraoperative monitoring, and non-English studies were excluded. The methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS) score was used to assess impact of study bias and all study components were aligned with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Our review yielded 1,353 articles, 17 of which met our inclusion criteria, consisting of 618 patients. All were prospective observational studies performed in the ED ( n  = 3) and PICU ( n  = 14). Etiologies of shock were disclosed in 13/17 papers and consisted of patients in septic shock (38%), cardiogenic shock (29%), and hypovolemic shock (23%). Noninvasive hemodynamic monitors included transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) ( n  = 10), ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM) ( n  = 1), inferior vena cava ultrasonography ( n  = 2), noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM)/electrical cardiometry ( n  = 5), and >2 modalities ( n  = 1). To evaluate fluid responsiveness, most commonly examined parameters included stroke volume variation ( n  = 6), cardiac index (CI) ( n  = 6), aortic blood flow peak velocity (∆ V peak ) ( n  = 3), and change in stroke volume index ( n  = 3). CI increase >10% predicted fluid responsiveness by TTE in all ages; however, when using NICOM, this increase was only predictive in children >5 years old. Additionally, ∆SV of 10 to 13% using TTE and USCOM was deemed predictive, while no studies concluded distensibility index by transabdominal ultrasound to be significantly predictive. Few articles explore implications of noninvasive hemodynamic monitors in evaluating fluid responsiveness in pediatric shock, especially in the ED setting. Consensus about their utility remains unclear, reiterating the need for further investigations of efficacy, accuracy, and applicability of these techniques.","PeriodicalId":44426,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pediatric Intensive Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pediatric Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1771347","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring devices have been introduced to better quantify fluid responsiveness in pediatric shock; however, current evidence for their use is inconsistent. This review aims to examine available noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring techniques for assessing fluid responsiveness in children with shock. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar, examining published studies until December 31, 2022. Articles were identified using initial keywords: [noninvasive] AND [fluid responsiveness]. Inclusion criteria included age 0 to 18, use of noninvasive techniques, and the emergency department (ED) or pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) settings. Abstracts, review papers, articles investigating intraoperative monitoring, and non-English studies were excluded. The methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS) score was used to assess impact of study bias and all study components were aligned with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Our review yielded 1,353 articles, 17 of which met our inclusion criteria, consisting of 618 patients. All were prospective observational studies performed in the ED ( n  = 3) and PICU ( n  = 14). Etiologies of shock were disclosed in 13/17 papers and consisted of patients in septic shock (38%), cardiogenic shock (29%), and hypovolemic shock (23%). Noninvasive hemodynamic monitors included transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) ( n  = 10), ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM) ( n  = 1), inferior vena cava ultrasonography ( n  = 2), noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM)/electrical cardiometry ( n  = 5), and >2 modalities ( n  = 1). To evaluate fluid responsiveness, most commonly examined parameters included stroke volume variation ( n  = 6), cardiac index (CI) ( n  = 6), aortic blood flow peak velocity (∆ V peak ) ( n  = 3), and change in stroke volume index ( n  = 3). CI increase >10% predicted fluid responsiveness by TTE in all ages; however, when using NICOM, this increase was only predictive in children >5 years old. Additionally, ∆SV of 10 to 13% using TTE and USCOM was deemed predictive, while no studies concluded distensibility index by transabdominal ultrasound to be significantly predictive. Few articles explore implications of noninvasive hemodynamic monitors in evaluating fluid responsiveness in pediatric shock, especially in the ED setting. Consensus about their utility remains unclear, reiterating the need for further investigations of efficacy, accuracy, and applicability of these techniques.
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
使用无创血流动力学监测评估儿童休克的液体反应:综述
无创血流动力学监测设备已被引入,以更好地量化儿童休克的液体反应;然而,目前使用它们的证据并不一致。本综述旨在研究可用的无创血流动力学监测技术,以评估休克儿童的液体反应性。使用PubMed和Google Scholar进行了全面的文献检索,检查了截至2022年12月31日发表的研究。文章的识别使用初始关键词:[无创]和[流体反应性]。纳入标准包括年龄0 - 18岁,使用无创技术,急诊科(ED)或儿科重症监护病房(PICU)设置。摘要、综述、调查术中监测的文章和非英语研究被排除在外。非随机研究的方法学指数(minor)评分用于评估研究偏倚的影响,所有研究成分均符合系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)指南的首选报告项目。我们的综述得到1353篇文章,其中17篇符合我们的纳入标准,包括618名患者。所有研究都是在ED (n = 3)和PICU (n = 14)进行的前瞻性观察性研究。13/17篇论文披露了休克的病因,包括脓毒性休克(38%)、心源性休克(29%)和低血容量性休克(23%)。无创血流动力学监测包括经胸超声心动图(TTE) (n = 10)、超声心输出量监测仪(USCOM) (n = 1)、下腔静脉超声(n = 2)、无创心输出量监测(NICOM)/心电测量(n = 5)和>2种方式(n = 1)。为了评估液体反应性,最常检查的参数包括脑卒中容量变化(n = 6)、心脏指数(CI) (n = 6)、主动脉血流峰值速度(∆V峰值)(n = 3)和脑卒中容量指数变化(n = 3)。TTE预测各年龄段患者体液反应性CI升高>10%;然而,当使用NICOM时,这种增加仅在>5岁的儿童中具有预测性。此外,TTE和USCOM的∆SV值为10 - 13%被认为具有预测性,而没有研究表明经腹超声的膨胀性指数具有显著的预测性。很少有文章探讨无创血流动力学监测在评估儿童休克,特别是急诊科的液体反应性中的意义。关于其效用的共识仍不清楚,重申需要进一步调查这些技术的有效性、准确性和适用性。
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
自引率
14.30%
发文量
60
期刊最新文献
Harms Associated with Tracheal Reintubation After Unplanned Extubation: A Retrospective Cohort Study Kindergarten Readiness Assessment Scores in Children who Received Early Life Mechanical Ventilation in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit “It Would Be All-Consuming”: Community Parents' Perceptions of the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Rescue Therapy in Pediatric Bupropion Cardiotoxicity Social Disadvantage and Inequity in Access to Pediatric Critical Care Services for Children Living Remote from a Children's Hospital
×
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