Why did arterial pressure not increase after fluid administration?

Understanding nursing perceptions of intravenous fluid management practices

PURPOSE

Intravenous (IV) fluids are routinely used in hospitalized patients. As IV fluids are an everyday occurrence, their importance is often overlooked. Many patients receive large volumes of fluid during resuscitation to aid in the promotion of tissue perfusion. Nurses regularly administer IV fluids as part of maintenance infusions or as life-saving therapies and, therefore, need to understand these fluids' impact on their patients. Understanding nurses' existing perceptions of IV fluid management practices are crucial to improving practice.

METHODS

This study used an online survey to gather information on nursing perceptions of IV fluids. Four hundred and sixty-two Canadian nurses from diverse backgrounds were surveyed, including registered nurses, licensed practical nurses and student nurses.

RESULTS

The study found that the majority of participants agreed that IV fluids, including type, amount, and rationale for infusion, were important. They also agreed that fluids could impact patient outcomes. However, the study found that, despite recognizing the value and importance of fluid management, many nurses struggled with recognizing how to determine a patient's fluid status versus fluid responsiveness.

CONCLUSION

This study supports improving nursing education to understand better the differences between fluid volume status and volume responsiveness. Our study also provides evidence that nurses need access to more sophisticated tools to conduct dynamic assessments and better meet patients' needs.

Phenotypes of hemodynamic response to fluid challenge during anesthesia: a cluster analysis

BACKGROUND

The fluid challenge (FC) response is usually evaluated as binary, which may be inadequate to describe the complex interactions between heart function and vascular tone response after fluid administration. We applied a clustering approach to assess the different phenotypes of cardiovascular responses to FC administration, considering the associations of all the baseline variables potentially influencing pressure and flow response to a FC. Secondarily, we evaluated the reliability of baseline hemodynamic variables in discriminating fluid responsiveness, which is considered the standard approach at the bedside.

METHODS

Five merged datasets from elective surgical patients receiving a FC dose ≥4 mL/kg, infused over 10 minutes. In a principal component approach, hierarchical clustering was used to define hemodynamic phenotypes of response to FC administration. Hierarchical cluster analysis with Ward linkage was carried out to define similar patient groups using the Gower distance for the mixed combination of continuous and categorical variables. No a priori criteria of fluid responsiveness were applied. The area (AUC) under the pre-FC variables' receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) was also built to predict fluid responsiveness, defined as SVI ≥10% after FC.

RESULTS

We analyzed 223 patients. The cluster analysis identified three hemodynamic clusters of patients: cluster 1 (98 patients, 44.0%) showed an average increase of mean arterial pressure (MAP) and Stroke Volume Index (SVI) of 17.3% (11.9-23.1) and 13.1% (0.5-23.4) at the end of FC, respectively. These patients showed baseline flow and pressure variables slightly below physiological ranges, with high pulse pressure variation (PPV). Cluster 2 (68 patients, 30.5%) showed no increase of MAP and SVI at the end of FC. These patients showed baseline flow and pressure variables within physiological ranges, with low hear rate (HR) and PPV. Cluster 3 (57 patients, 25.5%) showed no MAP increase and an SVI increase of 13.1 (2.1-19.6). These patients showed baseline pressure variables within physiological ranges, low flow variables associated to high HR and PPV. The pulse pressure variation (PPV) showed an AUC of 0.82 (0.03), with a grey zone ranging from 6% to 12%, including 86 (38.5%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Clustering analysis identified three hemodynamic clusters with different response phenotypes to FC. This promising approach may enhance the ability to detect fluid responsiveness at the bedside, by considering the specific association of parameters and not the presence of a single one, such as the PPV. In fact, in our cohort the reliability of the PPV was limited, showing high sensibility and specificity only above 12% and below 6%, respectively, and a grey zone including 38.5% of patients.

Fluids and Early Vasopressors in the Management of Septic Shock: Do We Have the Right Answers Yet?

Septic shock is a common condition associated with hypotension and organ dysfunction. It is associated with high mortality rates of up to 60% despite the best recommended resuscitation strategies in international guidelines. Patients with septic shock generally have a Mean Arterial Pressure below 65 mmHg and hypotension is the most important determinant of mortality among this group of patients. The extent and duration of hypotension are important. The two initial options that we have are 1) administration of intravenous (IV) fluids and 2) vasopressors, The current recommendation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines to administer 30 ml/kg fluid cannot be applied to all patients. Complications of fluid over-resuscitation further delay organ recovery, prolong ICU and hospital length of stay, and increase mortality. The only reason for administering intravenous fluids in a patient with circulatory shock is to increase the mean systemic filling pressure in a patient who is volume-responsive, such that cardiac output also increases. The use of vasopressors seems to be a more appropriate strategy, the very early administration of vasopressors, preferably during the first hour after diagnosis of septic shock, may have a multimodal action and potential advantages, leading to lower morbidity and mortality in the management of septic patients. Vasopressor therapy should be initiated as soon as possible in patients with septic shock.

Fluid challenges in operating room: A planned sub study of the Fluid Day observational study

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative fluid administration is a ubiquitous intervention in surgical patients. But inadequate fluid administration may lead to poor postoperative outcomes. Fluid challenges (FCs), in or outside the so-called goal-directed fluid therapy, allows testing the cardiovascular system and the need for further fluid administration. Our primary aim was to evaluate how anesthesiologists conduct FCs in the operating room in terms of type, volume, variables used to trigger a FC and to compare the proportion of patients receiving further fluid administration based on the response to the FC.

METHODS

This was a planned substudy of an observational study conducted in 131 centres in Spain in patients undergoing surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 396 patients were enrolled and analysed in the study. The median [interquartile range] amount of fluid given during a FC was 250ml (200-400). The main indication for FC was a decrease in systolic arterial pressure in 246 cases (62.2%). The second was a decrease in mean arterial pressure (54.4%). Cardiac output was used in 30 patients (7.58%), while stroke volume variation in 29 of 385 cases (7.32%). The response to the initial FC did not have an impact when prescribing further fluid administration.

CONCLUSIONS

The current indication and evaluation of FC in surgical patients is highly variable. Prediction of fluid responsiveness is not routinely used, and inappropriate variables are frequently evaluated for assessing the hemodynamic response to FC, which may result in deleterious effects.

Real-world outcomes of the hypotension prediction index in the management of intraoperative hypotension during non-cardiac surgery: a retrospective clinical study

The Hypotension Prediction Index (HPI) is a validated algorithm developed by applying machine learning for predicting intraoperative arterial hypotension (IOH). We evaluated whether the HPI, combined with a personalized treatment protocol, helps to reduce IOH (depth and duration) and perioperative events in real practice. This was a single-center retrospective study including 104 consecutive adults undergoing urgent or elective non-cardiac surgery with moderate-to-high risk of bleeding, requiring invasive blood pressure and continuous cardiac output monitoring. Depending on the sensor, two comparable groups were identified: patients managed following the institutional protocol of personalized goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT, n = 52), or this GDFT supported by the HPI (HPI, n = 52). The time-weighted average of hypotension for a mean arterial pressure < 65 mmHg (TWA_MAP<65), postoperative complications and length of hospital stay (LOS) were automatically downloaded from medical records and revised by clinicians blinded to the management received by patients. Differences in preoperative variables (i.e. physical status -ASA class-, acute kidney Injury-AKI- risk) and outcomes were analyzed using non-parametric tests with Hodges-Lehmann estimator for the median of differences. ASA class and AKI risk were similar (p = 0.749 and p = 0.837, respectively). Blood loss was also comparable (p = 0.279). HPI patients had a lower TWA_MAP<65 [0.09 mmHg (0-0.48 mmHg)] vs [0.23 mmHg (0.01 to 0.97 mmHg)], p = 0.037. Postoperative complications were less prevalent in the HPI patients (0.46 ± 0.98 vs. 0.88 ± 1.20), p = 0.035. Finally, LOS was significantly shorter among HPI patients with a median difference of 2 days (p = 0.019). The HPI combined with a GDFT protocol may help to minimize the severity of IOH during non-cardiac surgery.

[Haemodynamic monitoring in sepsis and septic shock]

Cardiovascular disturbances associated with sepsis cause hypoperfusion situations, which will negatively impact these patients' prognosis. The aim of haemodynamic monitoring is to guide the detection and correction of this hypoperfusion, and assist in decision making in optimising oxygen transport to tissues, primarily by manipulating cardiac output. This review seeks to summarise the different parameters of haemodynamic monitoring, the objectives of resuscitation, the physiological parameters, and the tools available to us for appropriate cardiac output manipulation.

Ten answers to key questions for fluid management in intensive care

This review focuses on fluid management of critically ill patients. The topic is addressed based on 10 single questions with simplified answers that provide clinicians with the basic information needed at the point of care in treating patients in the Intensive Care Unit. The review has didactic purposes and may serve both as an update on fluid management and as an introduction to the subject for novices in critical care. There is an urgent need to increase awareness regarding the potential risks associated with fluid overload. Clinicians should be mindful not only of the indications for administering fluid loads and of the type of fluids administered, but also of the importance to set safety limits. Lastly, it is important to implement proactive strategies seeking to establish negative fluid balance as soon as the clinical conditions are considered to be stable and the risk of deterioration is low.

Variability in the Hemodynamic Response to Fluid Bolus in Pediatric Septic Shock

OBJECTIVES

Fluid boluses are commonly administered to improve the cardiac output and tissue oxygen delivery in pediatric septic shock. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of an early fluid bolus administered to children with septic shock on the cardiac index and mean arterial pressure, as well as on the hemodynamic response and its relationship with outcome.

DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS, AND INTERVENTIONS

We prospectively collected hemodynamic data from children with septic shock presenting to the emergency department or the PICU who received a fluid bolus (10 mL/kg of Ringers Lactate over 30 min). A clinically significant response in cardiac index-responder and mean arterial pressure-responder was both defined as an increase of greater than or equal to 10% 10 minutes after fluid bolus.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Forty-two children with septic shock, 1 month to 16 years old, median Pediatric Risk of Mortality-III of 13 (interquartile range, 9-19), of whom 66% were hypotensive and received fluid bolus within the first hour of shock recognition. Cardiac index- and mean arterial pressure-responsiveness rates were 31% and 38%, respectively. We failed to identify any association between cardiac index and mean arterial pressure changes (r = 0.203; p = 0.196). Cardiac function was similar in mean arterial pressure- and cardiac index-responders and nonresponders. Mean arterial pressure-responders increased systolic, diastolic, and perfusion pressures (mean arterial pressure - central venous pressure) after fluid bolus due to higher indexed systemic vascular resistance and arterial elastance index. Mean arterial pressure-nonresponders required greater vasoactive-inotrope support and had higher mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The hemodynamic response to fluid bolus in pediatric septic shock was variable and unpredictable. We failed to find a relationship between mean arterial pressure and cardiac index changes. The adverse effects of fluid bolus extended beyond fluid overload and, in some cases, was associated with reduced mean arterial pressure, perfusion pressures and higher vasoactive support. Mean arterial pressure-nonresponders had increased mortality. The response to the initial fluid bolus may be helpful to understand each patient's individualized physiologic response and guide continued hemodynamic management.

Variability in the Physiologic Response to Fluid Bolus in Pediatric Patients Following Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

Fluid boluses aiming to improve the cardiac output and oxygen delivery are commonly administered in children with shock. An increased mean arterial pressure in addition to resolution of tachycardia and improved peripheral perfusion are often monitored as clinical surrogates for improvement in cardiac output. The objective of our study is to describe changes in cardiac index, mean arterial pressure, and their relationship to other indices of cardiovascular performance.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study is to describe changes in cardiac index, mean arterial pressure, and their relationship to other indices of cardiovascular performance.

DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS, AND INTERVENTIONS

We prospectively analyzed hemodynamic data from children in the cardiac ICU who received fluid bolus (10mL/kg of Ringers-Lactate over 30 min) for management of shock and/or hypoperfusion within 12h of cardiac surgery. Cardiac index responders and mean arterial pressure-responders were defined as CI ≥10% and mean arterial pressure ≥10%, respectively. We evaluated the gradient for venous-return (mean systemic filling pressure-central venous pressure), arterial load properties (systemic vascular resistance index and elastance index) and changes in vasopressor support after fluid bolus.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-seven children between 1 month and 16 years (median Risk adjustment after congenital heart surgery Model for Outcome Surveillance in Australia and New Zealand score of 3.8 (interquartile range 3.7-4.6) received fluid bolus. Cardiac index-responsiveness and mean arterial pressure-responsiveness rates were 33% and 56%, respectively. No significant correlation was observed between changes in mean arterial pressure and cardiac index (r = 0.035, p = 0.79). Although the mean systemic filling pressure - central venous pressure and the number of cardiac index-responders after fluid bolus were similar, the arterial load parameters did not change in mean arterial pressure-nonresponders. Forty-three patients (75%) had a change in Vasoactive-Inotrope Score after the fluid bolus, of whom 60% received higher level of vasoactive support.

CONCLUSIONS

The mean arterial pressure response to fluid bolus in cardiac ICU patients was unpredictable with a poor relationship between cardiac index-responsiveness and mean arterial pressure-responsiveness. Because arterial hypotension is frequently a trigger for administering fluids and changes in blood pressure are commonly used for tracking changes in cardiac output, we suggest a cautious and individualized approach to repeat fluid bolus based solely on lack of mean arterial pressure response to the initial fluid, since the implications include decreased arterial tone even if the cardiac index increases.

Hemodynamic support in septic shock

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The current article reviews recent findings on the monitoring and hemodynamic support of septic shock patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

The ultimate goal of hemodynamic resuscitation is to restore tissue oxygenation. A multimodal approach combining global and regional markers of tissue hypoxia seems appropriate to guide resuscitation. Several multicenter clinical trials have provided evidence against an aggressive fluid resuscitation strategy. Fluid administration should be personalized and based on the evidence of fluid responsiveness. Dynamic indices have proven to be highly predictive of responsiveness. Recent data suggest that balanced crystalloids may be associated with less renal failure. When fluid therapy is insufficient, a multimode approach with different types of vasopressors has been suggested as an initial approach. Dobutamine remains the firs inotropic option in patients with persistent hypotension and decrease ventricular systolic function. Calcium sensitizer and phosphodiesterase inhibitors may be considered, but evidence is still limited. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may be considered in selected unresponsive patients, particularly with myocardial depression, and in a highly experienced center.

SUMMARY

Resuscitation should be personalized and based on global and regional markers of tissue hypoxia as well as the fluid responsiveness indices. The beneficial effect of multimode approach with different types of vasopressors, remains to be determined.

Ten answers to key questions for fluid management in intensive care

This review focuses on fluid management of critically ill patients. The topic is addressed based on 10 single questions with simplified answers that provide clinicians with the basic information needed at the point of care in treating patients in the Intensive Care Unit. The review has didactic purposes and may serve both as an update on fluid management and as an introduction to the subject for novices in critical care. There is an urgent need to increase awareness regarding the potential risks associated with fluid overload. Clinicians should be mindful not only of the indications for administering fluid loads and of the type of fluids administered, but also of the importance to set safety limits. Lastly, it is important to implement proactive strategies seeking to establish negative fluid balance as soon as the clinical conditions are considered to be stable and the risk of deterioration is low.