Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32451626›Full record

ReviewJournal of anesthesia2020

Evaluation of fluid responsiveness during COVID-19 pandemic: what are the remaining choices?

Ahmed Hasanin, Maha Mostafa

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of anesthesia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Admission SpOThe American journal of emergency medicine · 2021
    Observational
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. ALLY in fighting COVID-19: magnitude of albumin decline and lymphopenia (ALLY) predict progression to critical disease.Journal of investigative medicine : the official publication of the American Federation for Clinical Research · 2021
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Ahmed HasaninDepartment of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, 01 Elsarayah Street, Elmanyal, Cairo, 11559, Egypt. ahmedmohamedhasanin@gmail.com.
Maha MostafaDepartment of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, 01 Elsarayah Street, Elmanyal, Cairo, 11559, Egypt.
Cairo University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-protocolized fluid administration in critically ill patients, especially those with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), is associated with poor outcomes. Therefore, fluid administration in patients with Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) should be properly guided. Choice of an index to guide fluid management during a pandemic with mass patient admissions carries an additional challenge due to the relatively limited resources. An ideal test for assessment of fluid responsiveness during this pandemic should be accurate in ARDS patients, economic, easy to interpret by junior staff, valid in patients in the prone position and performed with minimal contact with the patient to avoid spread of infection. Patients with COVID-19 ARDS are divided into two phenotypes (L phenotype and H phenotype) according to their lung compliance. Selection of the proper index for fluid responsiveness varies according to the patient phenotype. Heart-lung interaction methods can be used only in patients with L phenotype ARDS. Real-time measures, such a pulse pressure variation, are more appropriate for use during this pandemic compared to ultrasound-derived measures, because contamination of the ultrasound machine can spread infection. Preload challenge tests are suitable for use in all COVID-19 patients. Passive leg raising test is relatively better than mini-fluid challenge test, because it can be repeated without overloading the patient with fluids. Trendelenburg maneuver is a suitable alternative to the passive leg raising test in patients with prone position. If a cardiac output monitor was not available, the response to the passive leg raising test could be traced by measurement of the pulse pressure or the perfusion index. Preload modifying maneuvers, such as tidal volume challenge, can also be used in COVID-19 patients, especially if the patient was in the gray zone of other dynamic tests. However, the preload modifying maneuvers were not extensively evaluated outside the operating room. Selection of the proper test would vary according to the level of healthcare in the country and the load of admissions which might be overwhelming. Evaluation of the volume status should be comprehensive; therefore, the presence of signs of volume overload such as lower limb edema, lung edema, and severe hypoxemia should be considered beside the usual indices for fluid responsiveness.

Indexed as

PandemicsCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Critical CareFluid TherapyHumansPneumonia, ViralRespiratory Distress SyndromeShock, SepticCOVID-19Fluid responsivenessHeart–lung interactionPandemicPassive leg raising testSeptic shock

Identifiers

PMID32451626
PMCPMC7246295
OpenAlexW3029800600

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.