Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29691755›Full record

ReviewAnnals of intensive care2018

My patient has received fluid. How to assess its efficacy and side effects?

Xavier Monnet, Jean-Louis Teboul

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of intensive care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05627817 (Timing of Preload Responsiveness in Sepsis and Septic Shock), which is not on this map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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.

NCT05627817 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Timing of Preload Responsiveness in Sepsis and Septic Shock

TypeobservationalSponsorBicetre HospitalRan2019 to 2023Enrolled100ConditionsSeptic Shock, Fluid Responsiveness
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. How I personalize fluid therapy in septic shock?Critical care (London, England) · 2023
    Review
  17. Prediction of fluid responsiveness. What's new?Annals of intensive care · 2022
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xavier MonnetHôpital de Bicêtre, Service de Réanimation Médicale, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris-Sud, 78, rue du Général Leclerc, 94270, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France. xavier.monnet@aphp.fr.
Jean-Louis TeboulHôpital de Bicêtre, Service de Réanimation Médicale, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris-Sud, 78, rue du Général Leclerc, 94270, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FRCentre Chirurgical Marie Lannelongue · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many efforts have been made to predict, before giving fluid, whether it will increase cardiac output. Nevertheless, after fluid administration, it is also essential to assess the therapeutic efficacy and to look for possible adverse effects. Like for any drug, this step should not be missed. Basically, volume expansion is aimed at improving tissue oxygenation and organ function. To assess this final result, clinical signs are often unhelpful. The increase in urine output in case of acute kidney injury is a poor marker of the kidney perfusion improvement. Even if oxygen delivery has increased with fluid, the increase in oxygen consumption is not constant. Assessing this response needs to measure markers such as lactate, central/mixed venous oxygen saturation, or carbon dioxide-derived indices. If tissue oxygenation did not improve, one should check that cardiac output has actually increased with fluid administration. To assess this response, changes in arterial pressure are not reliable enough, and direct measurements of cardiac output are required. In cases where cardiac output did not increase with fluid, one should check that it was not due to an insufficient volume of fluid administered. For this purpose, volume markers of cardiac preload sometimes lack precision. The central venous pressure, in theory at least, should not augment to a large extent in fluid responders. The worst adverse effect of fluids is the increase in the cumulative fluid balance. In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the risk of aggravating pulmonary oedema should be systematically assessed by looking for increases in extravascular lung water, or, more indirectly, increases in central venous or pulmonary artery occlusion pressure. In ARDS patients receiving fluid, one should always keep in mind the risk of inducing/aggravating right ventricular dilation, which should be confirmed through echocardiography. The risk of increasing the intra-abdominal pressure should be carefully sought in patients at risk. Finally, fluid-induced haemodilution should not be neglected. Like for any drug which has inconsistent effectiveness and may exert significant harm, the correct fluid management should include a cautious and comprehensive assessment of fluid-induced benefits and side effects.

Indexed as

Cardiac outputExtravascular lung waterFluid challengeFluid responsivenessPassive leg raisingPulse pressure variation

Identifiers

PMID29691755
PMCPMC5915982
OpenAlexW2807672352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.