Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33888514›Full record

ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2021

Non-invasive assessment of fluid responsiveness to guide fluid therapy in patients with sepsis in the emergency department: a prospective cohort study.

Nienke K Koopmans, Renate Stolmeijer, Ben C Sijtsma, Paul A van Beest, Christiaan E Boerma, Nic J Veeger, Ewoud Ter Avest

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Physiology Is Vital to Precision Medicine in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Sepsis.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2022
    Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nienke K KoopmansEmergency Medicine, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.
Renate StolmeijerEmergency Medicine, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Ben C SijtsmaEmergency Medicine, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.
Paul A van BeestAnesthesiology, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.
Christiaan E BoermaIntensive Care Medicine, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.
Nic J VeegerEpidemiology, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.
Ewoud Ter AvestEmergency Medicine, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands E.ter.Avest@umcg.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1462-6130
Medisch Centrum Leeuwarden · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle is known about optimal fluid therapy for patients with sepsis without shock who present to the ED. In this study, we aimed to quantify the effect of a fluid challenge on non-invasively measured Cardiac Index (CI) in patients presenting with sepsis without shock.

methodsIn a prospective cohort study, CI, stroke volume (SV) and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) were measured non-invasively in 30 patients presenting with sepsis without shock to the ED of a large teaching hospital in the Netherlands between May 2018 and March 2019 using the ClearSight system. After baseline measurements were performed, a passive leg raise (PLR) was done to simulate a fluid bolus. Measurements were then repeated 30, 60, 90 and 120 s after PLR. Finally, a standardised 500 mL NaCl 0.9% intravenous bolus was administered after which final measurements were done. Fluid responsiveness was defined as >15% increase in CI after a standardised fluid challenge. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsSeven out of 30 (23%) patients demonstrated a >15% increase in CI after PLR and after a 500 mL fluid bolus. Fluid responders had a higher estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (64 (44-78) vs 37 (23-47), p=0.009) but otherwise similar patient and treatment characteristics as non-responders. Baseline measurements of cardiac output (CO), CI, SV and SVR were unrelated to PLR fluid responsiveness. The change in CI after PLR was strongly positive correlated to the change in CI after a 500 mL NaCl 0.9% fluid bolus (r=0.88, p<0.001).

conclusionThe results of the present study demonstrate that in patients with sepsis in the absence of shock, three out of four patients do not demonstrate a clinically relevant increase in CI after a standardised fluid challenge. Non-invasive CO monitoring in combination with a PLR test has the potential to identify patients who might benefit from fluid resuscitation and may contribute to a better tailored treatment of these patients.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalAgedAged, 80 and overCardiac OutputFemaleFluid TherapyHumansMaleNetherlandsProspective StudiesSepsisStroke Volumebacterialclinical managementinfectious diseasesnon invasivetreatment

Identifiers

PMID33888514
PMCPMC8165141
OpenAlexW3154027681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.