Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38585150›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024

Evaluating the efficacy of a standardized 4 mL/kg fluid bolus technique in critically ill patients with elevated P

Rachid Attou, Thierry Du, Dimitrios Velissaris, Sebastien Redant, Mircea T Talpoș, Charalampos Pierrakos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Rachid AttouDepartment of Intensive Care, Brugmann University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Thierry DuDepartment of Intensive Care, Brugmann University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Dimitrios VelissarisDepartment of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Patras, Patras, Greece.
Sebastien RedantDepartment of Intensive Care, Brugmann University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Mircea T TalpoșDepartment of Intensive Care, Brugmann University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Charalampos PierrakosDepartment of Intensive Care, Brugmann University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Limiting the fluid bolus (FB) volume may attenuate side effects, including hemodilution and increased filling pressures, but it may also reduce hemodynamic responsiveness. The minimum volume to create hemodynamic effects is considered to be 4 mL/kg. In critically ill patients, the hemodynamic effects of FB with this volume have not been adequately investigated and compared to higher quantities. We hypothesized that a standardized FB approach using 4 mL/kg has comparable hemodynamic and metabolic effects to the common practice of physician-determined FB in critically ill patients. Methods: We conducted Results: A total of 47 patients were eligible for the study, 15 of whom received physician-determined FB and 32 of whom received standardized FB. Patients in the physician-determined FB group received 16 (12-19) mL/kg at a fluid rate of 1.5 (1.5-1.9) L/h, compared to 4.1 (3.7-4.4) mL/kg at a fluid rate of 1.2 (1.2-1.2) L/h ( Conclusion: A standardized FB protocol (4 mL/kg at 1.2 L/h) effectively reduced the volume of fluid administered to critically ill patients without compromising hemodynamic or metabolic effects.

Indexed as

carbon dioxidecrystalloid solutionsfluid challengehemodilutionhemodynamicsPCO2 gapplasma substitutesveins/metabolism

Identifiers

PMID38585150
PMCPMC10996368

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.