Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37474816›Full record

ReviewIntensive care medicine experimental2023

Fluid management strategies and their interaction with mechanical ventilation: from experimental studies to clinical practice.

Eduardo Butturini de Carvalho, Denise Battaglini, Chiara Robba, Manu L N G Malbrain, Paolo Pelosi, Patricia Rieken Macedo Rocco, Pedro Leme Silva

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Eduardo Butturini de CarvalhoLaboratory of Pulmonary Investigation, Carlos Chagas Filho Biophysics Institute, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Denise BattagliniIRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy.
Chiara RobbaIRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy.
Manu L N G MalbrainFirst Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland.
Paolo PelosiIRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy.
Patricia Rieken Macedo Rocco *Laboratory of Pulmonary Investigation, Carlos Chagas Filho Biophysics Institute, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. prmrocco@gmail.com.
Pedro Leme Silva *Laboratory of Pulmonary Investigation, Carlos Chagas Filho Biophysics Institute, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. pedroleme@biof.ufrj.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5838-4949
Ospedale Policlinico San Martino · ITUniversidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro · BRMedical University of Lublin · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients on mechanical ventilation may receive intravenous fluids via restrictive or liberal fluid management. A clear and objective differentiation between restrictive and liberal fluid management strategies is lacking in the literature. The liberal approach has been described as involving fluid rates ranging from 1.2 to 12 times higher than the restrictive approach. A restrictive fluid management may lead to hypoperfusion and distal organ damage, and a liberal fluid strategy may result in endothelial shear stress and glycocalyx damage, cardiovascular complications, lung edema, and distal organ dysfunction. The association between fluid and mechanical ventilation strategies and how they interact toward ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) could potentiate the damage. For instance, the combination of a liberal fluids and pressure-support ventilation, but not pressure control ventilation, may lead to further lung damage in experimental models of acute lung injury. Moreover, under liberal fluid management, the application of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) or an abrupt decrease in PEEP yielded higher endothelial cell damage in the lungs. Nevertheless, the translational aspects of these findings are scarce. The aim of this narrative review is to provide better understanding of the interaction between different fluid and ventilation strategies and how these interactions may affect lung and distal organs. The weaning phase of mechanical ventilation and the deresuscitation phase are not explored in this review.

Indexed as

Acute respiratory distress syndromeFluid managementHemodynamicsLiberal fluidsMechanical ventilationRestrictive fluids

Identifiers

PMID37474816
PMCPMC10359242
OpenAlexW4384924226

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.