An observational study of intensivists' expectations and effects of fluid boluses in critically ill patients.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
24
10
2021
accepted:
04
03
2022
entrez:
24
3
2022
pubmed:
25
3
2022
medline:
6
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Fluid bolus therapy (FBT) is common in ICUs but whether it achieves the effects expected by intensivists remains uncertain. We aimed to describe intensivists' expectations and compare them to the actual physiological effects. We evaluated 77 patients in two ICUs (Sweden and Australia). We included patients prescribed a FBT ≥250 ml over ≤30 minutes. The intensivist completed a questionnaire on triggers for and expected responses to FBT. We compared expected with actual values at FBT completion and after one hour. Median bolus size (IQR) was 300 ml (250-500) given over a median (IQR) of 21 minutes (15-30 mins). Boluses were 57% Ringer´s Acetate and 43% albumin (40-50g/L). Hypotension was the most common trigger (47%), followed by oliguria (21%). During FBT, 55% of patients received noradrenaline and 38% propofol. Intensivists expected a median MAP increase of 2.6 mmHg (IQR: -3.1 to +6.8) at end of bolus and of 1.3 mmHg (-3.5 to + 4.1) after one hour. Intensivist´s' expectations were judged to be accurate if they were within 5% above or below measured values. At FBT completion, 33% of MAP expectations were overestimations and 42% were underestimations. One hour later, 19% were overestimations and 43% were underestimations. Only 8% of expectations of measured urine output (UO) were accurate and 44% were overestimations. Correction for sedation or vasopressors did not modify these findings. The physiological expectations of intensivists after FBT carried a high risk of both over and underestimation. Since the physiological effect FBT was often small and did not meet clinical expectations, a reassessment of its rationale, effect, duration, and role appears justified.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Fluid bolus therapy (FBT) is common in ICUs but whether it achieves the effects expected by intensivists remains uncertain. We aimed to describe intensivists' expectations and compare them to the actual physiological effects.
METHODS
We evaluated 77 patients in two ICUs (Sweden and Australia). We included patients prescribed a FBT ≥250 ml over ≤30 minutes. The intensivist completed a questionnaire on triggers for and expected responses to FBT. We compared expected with actual values at FBT completion and after one hour.
RESULTS
Median bolus size (IQR) was 300 ml (250-500) given over a median (IQR) of 21 minutes (15-30 mins). Boluses were 57% Ringer´s Acetate and 43% albumin (40-50g/L). Hypotension was the most common trigger (47%), followed by oliguria (21%). During FBT, 55% of patients received noradrenaline and 38% propofol. Intensivists expected a median MAP increase of 2.6 mmHg (IQR: -3.1 to +6.8) at end of bolus and of 1.3 mmHg (-3.5 to + 4.1) after one hour. Intensivist´s' expectations were judged to be accurate if they were within 5% above or below measured values. At FBT completion, 33% of MAP expectations were overestimations and 42% were underestimations. One hour later, 19% were overestimations and 43% were underestimations. Only 8% of expectations of measured urine output (UO) were accurate and 44% were overestimations. Correction for sedation or vasopressors did not modify these findings.
CONCLUSIONS
The physiological expectations of intensivists after FBT carried a high risk of both over and underestimation. Since the physiological effect FBT was often small and did not meet clinical expectations, a reassessment of its rationale, effect, duration, and role appears justified.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35324970
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265770
pii: PONE-D-21-33377
pmc: PMC8947412
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0265770Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011 Oct;42(4):578-88
pubmed: 21565461
Crit Care Med. 2013 Jul;41(7):1774-81
pubmed: 23774337
Crit Care. 2010;14(5):R185
pubmed: 20950434
JAMA. 2016 Sep 27;316(12):1298-309
pubmed: 27673307
Curr Opin Crit Care. 2015 Oct;21(5):388-94
pubmed: 26348418
Ann Intensive Care. 2014 Aug 01;4:25
pubmed: 25593742
J Crit Care. 2016 Oct;35:126-32
pubmed: 27481747
Crit Care. 2012 Oct 29;16(5):236
pubmed: 23106914
Crit Care Resusc. 2020 Mar;22(1):15-25
pubmed: 32102639
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Mar;67(3):267-77
pubmed: 24275499
Crit Care. 2019 May 16;23(1):179
pubmed: 31097012
Intensive Care Med. 2015 Sep;41(9):1529-37
pubmed: 26162676
Crit Care Med. 2011 Feb;39(2):259-65
pubmed: 20975548
Crit Care. 2016 Jun 23;20(1):196
pubmed: 27334608
Crit Care Med. 2004 Mar;32(3):691-9
pubmed: 15090949
Intensive Care Med. 2012 Mar;38(3):422-8
pubmed: 22278593