Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42469838›Full record

Observational studyCritical care (London, England)2026

Assessing fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with intra-abdominal hypertension: a two-center, prospective, observational study.

Xiang Si, Wenliang Song, Daiyin Cao, Weining Zhu, Yali Lu, Huiru Peng, Hao Yuan, Liqun Liang, Jinlong Jiang, Tao Yang and 10 more

Abstract readObservational StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Critical care (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Xiang Si *Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Wenliang Song *Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Daiyin Cao *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Biomedical Innovation Center, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510655, China.
Weining Zhu *Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Yali LuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Longgang Center Hospital, Shenzhen, 518116, China.
Huiru PengDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Longgang Center Hospital, Shenzhen, 518116, China.
Hao YuanMedical Affairs Office, Tianhe District Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital, Guangzhou, 510620, China.
Liqun LiangPanyu District Community Health Service Management Center, Guangzhou, 511400, China.
Jinlong JiangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Tao YangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Xiaoxun MaDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Jiayan GuoDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Zimeng LiuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Yongjun LiuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Minying ChenDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Ronglin ChenDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Longgang Center Hospital, Shenzhen, 518116, China. ronglinch@126.com.
Xiangdong GuanDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China. guanxd@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Jianfeng WuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China. wujianf@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Rui ShiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China. shir28@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Xavier MonnetAP-HP, Service de Médecine Intensive-Réanimation, Hôpital de Bicêtre, DMU 4 CORREVE, Inserm 1358, IHU SEPSIS, CARMAS, Université Paris-Saclay, 78 Rue du Général Leclerc, 94270, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.

Funding

Shenzhen Medical Research Funds(C2401019) C2401019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) may reduce the diagnostic accuracy of the passive leg raising (PLR) test for predicting fluid responsiveness, with unclear mechanisms. The reliability of the end-expiratory occlusion (EEO) test and mini-fluid challenge in IAH remains unknown. This study explored the mechanisms underlying PLR impairment and assessed the accuracy of EEO and mini-fluid challenge in detecting fluid responsiveness in patients with and without IAH.

methodsIn this prospective study in two intensive care units (ICUs), we included ventilated patients with IAH ("IAH + "; intra-abdominal pressure [IAP] ≥ 12 mmHg) and without ("IAH-"), all monitored via transpulmonary thermodilution and receiving a 500-mL fluid challenge. Patients consecutively underwent a 1‑minute PLR, a 15‑second EEO, and a 1‑minute mini-fluid challenge of 100 mL, with cardiac index (CI) changes recorded during each maneuver. Following the mini-fluid challenge, the remaining 400 mL were infused over 14 min, and a ≥ 15% increase in CI was used to define fluid responders. The transmural pressure of the inferior vena cava was estimated by the central venous pressure (CVP) - IAP gradient.

resultsWe included 88 patients, 44 IAH- (25 fluid responders and 19 non-responders) and 44 IAH + (22 responders and 22 non-responders). Baseline IAP was 9 ± 2 mmHg in IAH- and 17 ± 3 mmHg in IAH + (p < 0.001). In IAH- responders, CI increased by 19 ± 11% during PLR and 31 ± 17% after volume expansion, with PLR positive in 24/25 responders. In IAH + responders, CI increased by 6 ± 7% during PLR (p < 0.001 vs. IAH-) and 30 ± 18% after volume expansion (p = 0.907 vs. IAH-). The AUROC of the PLR for detecting fluid responsiveness was 0.96 (0.87-1.00) in IAH- and 0.71 (0.56-0.87) in IAH + (p = 0.009 vs. IAH-). Among IAH + , there were 16 false negatives and 6 true positives for PLR, both with negative baseline CVP-IAP gradients. During PLR, the gradient reversed in true-positives (from -2.4 ± 4.0 to + 2.2 ± 2.7 mmHg, p = 0.014), whereas it remained negative in false-negatives (from -6.3 ± 3.7 to -1.4 ± 3.4 mmHg, p < 0.001). AUROC between IAH- and IAH + was similar for either the EEO test (0.95 [0.87-1.00] vs. 0.89 [0.80-0.97], p = 0.332) or mini-fluid challenge (0.94 [0.87-1.00] vs. 0.90 [0.79-1.00], p = 0.514).

conclusionIn patients with IAH, the limited diagnostic value of PLR for fluid responsiveness may be related to persistently negative CVP-IAP gradients in false-negative cases, whereas EEO and mini-fluid challenge remain reliable alternatives.

Indexed as

Fluid TherapyIntra-Abdominal HypertensionRespiration, ArtificialAgedFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsThermodilutionAbdominal vascular zoneCardiac outputEnd expiratory occlusionFluid challengeFluid toleranceIntra-abdominal pressurePassive leg raisingPreload responsivenessStarling resistorVascular waterfallVena cavaVenous return

Identifiers

PMID42469838
PMCPMC13488188

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.