Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26077088›Full record

ArticleIntensive care medicine2015

Effects of fluid administration on arterial load in septic shock patients.

Manuel Ignacio Monge García, Pedro Guijo González, Manuel Gracia Romero, Anselmo Gil Cano, Chris Oscier, Andrew Rhodes, Robert Michael Grounds, Maurizio Cecconi

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Intensive care medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 57 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04388267 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Comparative Study on the Relationship Between Fluid REsponsiveness and Arterial ELASTANCE in Patients With Septic Shock or in the Postoperative Course of Aortic Surgery

TypeobservationalSponsorCentral Hospital, Nancy, FranceRan2019 to 2020Enrolled80ConditionsShock, Septic, Hyperlactatemia, Oliguria, Aortic Aneurysm, AbdominalArmsFluid challenge
NCT04693923 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Capillary Refill Time Response to a Rapid Fluid Challenge in Septic Shock Patients: Pathophysiological Determinants, and Relation to Changes in Systemic, Regional and Microcirculatory Blood Flow

TypeinterventionalSponsorPontificia Universidad Catolica de ChileRan2021 to 2023Enrolled42ConditionsSeptic ShockArmsFluid challenge
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine Position Statement on the Management of Sepsis in Resource-limited Settings.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Manuel Ignacio Monge GarcíaUnidad de Cuidados Intensivos, Hospital SAS de Jerez, Jerez de la Frontera, Spain, ignaciomonge@gmail.com.
Pedro Guijo González
Manuel Gracia Romero
Anselmo Gil Cano
Chris Oscier
Andrew Rhodes
Robert Michael Grounds
Maurizio Cecconi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine the effects of fluid administration on arterial load in critically ill patients with septic shock.

methodsAnalysis of septic shock patients monitored with an oesophageal Doppler and equipped with an indwelling arterial catheter in whom a fluid challenge was performed because of the presence of systemic hypoperfusion. Measures of arterial load [systemic vascular resistance, SVR = mean arterial pressure (MAP)/cardiac output (CO); net arterial compliance, C = stroke volume (SV)/arterial pulse pressure; and effective arterial elastance, Ea = 90% of systolic arterial pressure/SV] were studied both before and after volume expansion (VE).

resultsEighty-one patients were analysed, 54 (67%) increased their CO by at least 10% after VE (preload responders). In the whole population, 29 patients (36%) increased MAP by at least 10 % from preinfusion level (pressure responders). In the preload responder group, only 24 patients (44%) were pressure responders. Fluid administration was associated with a significant decrease in Ea [from 1.68 (1.11-2.11) to 1.57 (1.08-1.99) mmHg/mL; P = 0.0001] and SVR [from 1035 (645-1483) to 928 (654-1452) dyn s cm(-5); P < 0.01]. Specifically, in preload responders in whom arterial pressure did not change, VE caused a reduction in Ea from 1.74 (1.22-2.24) to 1.55 (1.24-1.86) mmHg/mL (P < 0.0001), affecting both resistive [SVR: from 1082 (697-1475) to 914 (624-1475) dyn s cm(-5); P < 0.0001] and pulsatile [C: from 1.11 (0.84-1.49) to 1.18 (0.99-1.44) mL/mmHg; P < 0.05] components. There was no relationship between preinfusion arterial load parameters and VE-induced increase in arterial pressure.

conclusionFluid administration significantly reduced arterial load in critically patients with septic shock and acute circulatory failure, even when increasing cardiac output. This explains why some septic patients increase their cardiac output after fluid administration without improving blood pressure.

Indexed as

Vascular ResistanceAgedArterial PressureBlood PressureCardiac OutputEchocardiography, DopplerFemaleFluid TherapyHumansMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicRetrospective StudiesShock, SepticStroke Volume

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.