TY - JOUR
T1 - Coexistence of a fluid responsive state and venous congestion signals in critically ill patients
T2 - a multicenter observational proof-of-concept study
AU - Muñoz, Felipe
AU - Born, Pablo
AU - Bruna, Mario
AU - Ulloa, Rodrigo
AU - González, Cecilia
AU - Philp, Valerie
AU - Mondaca, Roberto
AU - Blanco, Juan Pablo
AU - Valenzuela, Emilio Daniel
AU - Retamal, Jaime
AU - Miralles, Francisco
AU - Wendel-Garcia, Pedro D.
AU - Ospina-Tascón, Gustavo A.
AU - Castro, Ricardo
AU - Rola, Philippe
AU - Bakker, Jan
AU - Hernández, Glenn
AU - Kattan, Eduardo
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2024.
PY - 2024/2/19
Y1 - 2024/2/19
N2 - Background: Current recommendations support guiding fluid resuscitation through the assessment of fluid responsiveness. Recently, the concept of fluid tolerance and the prevention of venous congestion (VC) have emerged as relevant aspects to be considered to avoid potentially deleterious side effects of fluid resuscitation. However, there is paucity of data on the relationship of fluid responsiveness and VC. This study aims to compare the prevalence of venous congestion in fluid responsive and fluid unresponsive critically ill patients after intensive care (ICU) admission. Methods: Multicenter, prospective cross-sectional observational study conducted in three medical–surgical ICUs in Chile. Consecutive mechanically ventilated patients that required vasopressors and admitted < 24 h to ICU were included between November 2022 and June 2023. Patients were assessed simultaneously for fluid responsiveness and VC at a single timepoint. Fluid responsiveness status, VC signals such as central venous pressure, estimation of left ventricular filling pressures, lung, and abdominal ultrasound congestion indexes and relevant clinical data were collected. Results: Ninety patients were included. Median age was 63 [45–71] years old, and median SOFA score was 9 [7–11]. Thirty-eight percent of the patients were fluid responsive (FR+), while 62% were fluid unresponsive (FR−). The most prevalent diagnosis was sepsis (41%) followed by respiratory failure (22%). The prevalence of at least one VC signal was not significantly different between FR+ and FR− groups (53% vs. 57%, p = 0.69), as well as the proportion of patients with 2 or 3 VC signals (15% vs. 21%, p = 0.4). We found no association between fluid balance, CRT status, or diagnostic group and the presence of VC signals. Conclusions: Venous congestion signals were prevalent in both fluid responsive and unresponsive critically ill patients. The presence of venous congestion was not associated with fluid balance or diagnostic group. Further studies should assess the clinical relevance of these results and their potential impact on resuscitation and monitoring practices.
AB - Background: Current recommendations support guiding fluid resuscitation through the assessment of fluid responsiveness. Recently, the concept of fluid tolerance and the prevention of venous congestion (VC) have emerged as relevant aspects to be considered to avoid potentially deleterious side effects of fluid resuscitation. However, there is paucity of data on the relationship of fluid responsiveness and VC. This study aims to compare the prevalence of venous congestion in fluid responsive and fluid unresponsive critically ill patients after intensive care (ICU) admission. Methods: Multicenter, prospective cross-sectional observational study conducted in three medical–surgical ICUs in Chile. Consecutive mechanically ventilated patients that required vasopressors and admitted < 24 h to ICU were included between November 2022 and June 2023. Patients were assessed simultaneously for fluid responsiveness and VC at a single timepoint. Fluid responsiveness status, VC signals such as central venous pressure, estimation of left ventricular filling pressures, lung, and abdominal ultrasound congestion indexes and relevant clinical data were collected. Results: Ninety patients were included. Median age was 63 [45–71] years old, and median SOFA score was 9 [7–11]. Thirty-eight percent of the patients were fluid responsive (FR+), while 62% were fluid unresponsive (FR−). The most prevalent diagnosis was sepsis (41%) followed by respiratory failure (22%). The prevalence of at least one VC signal was not significantly different between FR+ and FR− groups (53% vs. 57%, p = 0.69), as well as the proportion of patients with 2 or 3 VC signals (15% vs. 21%, p = 0.4). We found no association between fluid balance, CRT status, or diagnostic group and the presence of VC signals. Conclusions: Venous congestion signals were prevalent in both fluid responsive and unresponsive critically ill patients. The presence of venous congestion was not associated with fluid balance or diagnostic group. Further studies should assess the clinical relevance of these results and their potential impact on resuscitation and monitoring practices.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85185491202&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s13054-024-04834-1
DO - 10.1186/s13054-024-04834-1
M3 - Article
C2 - 38374167
AN - SCOPUS:85185491202
SN - 1364-8535
VL - 28
JO - Critical Care
JF - Critical Care
IS - 1
M1 - 52
ER -