Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30370279›Full record

ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2018

Prediction of fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients.

Mathieu Jozwiak, Xavier Monnet, Jean-Louis Teboul

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04693923 (Capillary Refill Time Response to a Rapid Fluid Challenge in Septic Shock Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.1field-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.

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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. The time course of fluid responsiveness.Annals of intensive care · 2026
    Review
  8. Advances in bedside imaging: lung ultrasound.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mathieu JozwiakHôpitaux Universitaires Paris-Sud, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital de Bicêtre, service de réanimation médicale, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
Xavier MonnetHôpitaux Universitaires Paris-Sud, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital de Bicêtre, service de réanimation médicale, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
Jean-Louis TeboulHôpitaux Universitaires Paris-Sud, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital de Bicêtre, service de réanimation médicale, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FRInserm · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fluid administration is the first-line therapy in patients with acute circulatory failure. The main goal of fluid administration is to increase the cardiac output and ultimately the oxygen delivery. Nevertheless, the decision to administer fluids or not should be carefully considered, since half of critically ill patients are fluid unresponsive, and the deleterious effects of fluid overload clearly documented. Thus, except at the initial phase of hypovolemic or septic shock, where hypovolemia is constant and most of the patients responsive to the initial fluid resuscitation, it is of importance to test fluid responsiveness before administering fluids in critically ill patients. The static markers of cardiac preload cannot reliably predict fluid responsiveness, although they have been used for decades. To address this issue, some dynamic tests have been developed over the past years. All these tests consist in measuring the changes in cardiac output in response to the transient changes in cardiac preload that they induced. Most of these tests are based on the heart-lung interactions. The pulse pressure or stroke volume respiratory variations were first described, following by the respiratory variations of the vena cava diameter or of the internal jugular vein diameter. Nevertheless, all these tests are reliable only under strict conditions limiting their use in many clinical situations. Other tests such as passive leg raising or end-expiratory occlusion act as an internal volume challenge. To reliably predict fluid responsiveness, physicians must choose among these different dynamic tests, depending on their respective limitations and on the cardiac output monitoring technique which is used. In this review, we will summarize the most recent findings regarding the prediction of fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients.

Indexed as

heart-lung interactionspreload reservePreload responsiveness

Identifiers

PMID30370279
PMCPMC6186547
OpenAlexW2803153385

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.