Coexistence of a fluid responsive state and venous congestion signals in critically ill patients: a multicenter observational proof-of-concept study.
Critical care
Fluid responsiveness
Fluid resuscitation
VExUS
Venous congestion
Journal
Critical care (London, England)
ISSN: 1466-609X
Titre abrégé: Crit Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9801902
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Feb 2024
19 Feb 2024
Historique:
received:
16
10
2023
accepted:
10
02
2024
medline:
20
2
2024
pubmed:
20
2
2024
entrez:
19
2
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Current recommendations support guiding fluid resuscitation through the assessment of fluid responsiveness. Recently, the concept of fluid tolerance and the prevention of venous congestion (VC) have emerged as relevant aspects to be considered to avoid potentially deleterious side effects of fluid resuscitation. However, there is paucity of data on the relationship of fluid responsiveness and VC. This study aims to compare the prevalence of venous congestion in fluid responsive and fluid unresponsive critically ill patients after intensive care (ICU) admission. Multicenter, prospective cross-sectional observational study conducted in three medical-surgical ICUs in Chile. Consecutive mechanically ventilated patients that required vasopressors and admitted < 24 h to ICU were included between November 2022 and June 2023. Patients were assessed simultaneously for fluid responsiveness and VC at a single timepoint. Fluid responsiveness status, VC signals such as central venous pressure, estimation of left ventricular filling pressures, lung, and abdominal ultrasound congestion indexes and relevant clinical data were collected. Ninety patients were included. Median age was 63 [45-71] years old, and median SOFA score was 9 [7-11]. Thirty-eight percent of the patients were fluid responsive (FR+), while 62% were fluid unresponsive (FR-). The most prevalent diagnosis was sepsis (41%) followed by respiratory failure (22%). The prevalence of at least one VC signal was not significantly different between FR+ and FR- groups (53% vs. 57%, p = 0.69), as well as the proportion of patients with 2 or 3 VC signals (15% vs. 21%, p = 0.4). We found no association between fluid balance, CRT status, or diagnostic group and the presence of VC signals. Venous congestion signals were prevalent in both fluid responsive and unresponsive critically ill patients. The presence of venous congestion was not associated with fluid balance or diagnostic group. Further studies should assess the clinical relevance of these results and their potential impact on resuscitation and monitoring practices.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Current recommendations support guiding fluid resuscitation through the assessment of fluid responsiveness. Recently, the concept of fluid tolerance and the prevention of venous congestion (VC) have emerged as relevant aspects to be considered to avoid potentially deleterious side effects of fluid resuscitation. However, there is paucity of data on the relationship of fluid responsiveness and VC. This study aims to compare the prevalence of venous congestion in fluid responsive and fluid unresponsive critically ill patients after intensive care (ICU) admission.
METHODS
METHODS
Multicenter, prospective cross-sectional observational study conducted in three medical-surgical ICUs in Chile. Consecutive mechanically ventilated patients that required vasopressors and admitted < 24 h to ICU were included between November 2022 and June 2023. Patients were assessed simultaneously for fluid responsiveness and VC at a single timepoint. Fluid responsiveness status, VC signals such as central venous pressure, estimation of left ventricular filling pressures, lung, and abdominal ultrasound congestion indexes and relevant clinical data were collected.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Ninety patients were included. Median age was 63 [45-71] years old, and median SOFA score was 9 [7-11]. Thirty-eight percent of the patients were fluid responsive (FR+), while 62% were fluid unresponsive (FR-). The most prevalent diagnosis was sepsis (41%) followed by respiratory failure (22%). The prevalence of at least one VC signal was not significantly different between FR+ and FR- groups (53% vs. 57%, p = 0.69), as well as the proportion of patients with 2 or 3 VC signals (15% vs. 21%, p = 0.4). We found no association between fluid balance, CRT status, or diagnostic group and the presence of VC signals.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Venous congestion signals were prevalent in both fluid responsive and unresponsive critically ill patients. The presence of venous congestion was not associated with fluid balance or diagnostic group. Further studies should assess the clinical relevance of these results and their potential impact on resuscitation and monitoring practices.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38374167
doi: 10.1186/s13054-024-04834-1
pii: 10.1186/s13054-024-04834-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
52Subventions
Organisme : Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo
ID : FONDECYT No 1230475
Organisme : Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
ID : Proyecto de Becario Residente DIEMUC No PB-03-23
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, Antonelli M, Coopersmith CM, French C, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(11):1181–247.
pubmed: 34599691
pmcid: 8486643
doi: 10.1007/s00134-021-06506-y
Bakker J, Kattan E, Annane D, Castro R, Cecconi M, de Backer D, et al. Current practice and evolving concepts in septic shock resuscitation. Intensive Care Med. 2022;48:148–63.
pubmed: 34910228
doi: 10.1007/s00134-021-06595-9
Monnet X, Shi R, Teboul J-L. Prediction of fluid responsiveness. What’s new? Ann Intensive Care. 2022;12:46.
pubmed: 35633423
pmcid: 9148319
doi: 10.1186/s13613-022-01022-8
Marik PE, Baram M, Vahid B. Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? Chest. 2008;134:172–8.
pubmed: 18628220
doi: 10.1378/chest.07-2331
Kattan E, Ospina-Tascón GA, Teboul J-L, Castro R, Cecconi M, Ferri G, et al. Systematic assessment of fluid responsiveness during early septic shock resuscitation: secondary analysis of the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial. Crit Care. 2020;24.
Douglas IS, Alapat PM, Corl KA, Exline MC, Forni LG, Holder AL, et al. Fluid response evaluation in sepsis hypotension and shock: a randomized clinical trial. Chest. 2020;158:1431–45.
pubmed: 32353418
pmcid: 9490557
doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.025
Monnet X, Teboul JL. Assessment of fluid responsiveness: recent advances. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2018;24:190–5.
pubmed: 29634494
doi: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000501
Cecconi M, Hofer C, Teboul JL, Pettila V, Wilkman E, Molnar Z, et al. Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: a global inception cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41:1529–37.
pubmed: 26162676
pmcid: 4550653
doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-3850-x
De Backer D, Aissaoui N, Cecconi M, Chew MS, Denault A, Hajjar L, et al. How can assessing hemodynamics help to assess volume status? Intensive Care Med. 2022;48(10):1482–94.
pubmed: 35945344
pmcid: 9363272
doi: 10.1007/s00134-022-06808-9
Monnet X, Malbrain MLNG, Pinsky MR. The prediction of fluid responsiveness. Intensive Care Med. 2023;49:83–6.
pubmed: 36323911
doi: 10.1007/s00134-022-06900-0
Ranjit S, Kissoon N, Argent A, Inwald D, Ventura AMC, Jaborinsky R, et al. Haemodynamic support for paediatric septic shock: a global perspective. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2023;7:588–98.
pubmed: 37354910
doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(23)00103-7
Boyd JH, Frcp C, Forbes J, Nakada T, Walley KR, Frcp C, et al. Fluid resuscitation in septic shock: a positive fluid balance and elevated central venous pressure are associated with increased mortality. 2011;39:259–65.
Bagshaw SM, Brophy PD, Cruz D, Ronco C. Fluid balance as a biomarker : impact of fluid overload on outcome in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. Crit Care. 2008;12:1–3.
doi: 10.1186/cc6948
Vellinga NAR, Ince C, Boerma EC. Elevated central venous pressure is associated with impairment of microcirculatory blood flow in sepsis: a hypothesis generating post hoc analysis. BMC Anesthesiol. 2013;7:13.
Kattan E, Castro R, Miralles-Aguiar F, Hernandez G RP. The emerging concept of Fluid Tolerance : a position paper. J Crit Care. 2022;71.
Park J-H, Marwick TH. Use and limitations of E/e’ to assess left ventricular filling pressure by echocardiography. J Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2011;19:169.
pubmed: 22259658
pmcid: 3259539
doi: 10.4250/jcu.2011.19.4.169
Beaubien-Souligny W, Rola P, Haycock K, Bouchard J, Lamarche Y, Spiegel R, et al. Quantifying systemic congestion with Point-Of-Care ultrasound: development of the venous excess ultrasound grading system. Ultrasound J. 2020;12(1):16.
pubmed: 32270297
pmcid: 7142196
doi: 10.1186/s13089-020-00163-w
Jozwiak M, Teboul JL, Monnet X. Extravascular lung water in critical care: recent advances and clinical applications. Ann Intensive Care. 2015;5:1–13.
doi: 10.1186/s13613-015-0081-9
Aman J, Johan Groeneveld AB, Van Nieuw Amerongen GP. Predictors of pulmonary edema formation during fluid loading in the critically ill with presumed hypovolemia*. Crit Care Med. 2012;40:793–9.
pubmed: 22080639
doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318236f2df
Monnet X, Teboul J. Transpulmonary thermodilution: advantages and limits. Crit Care. 2017;21:147.
pubmed: 28625165
pmcid: 5474867
doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1739-5
Mojoli F, Bouhemad B, Mongodi S, Lichtenstein D. Lung ultrasound for critically ill patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199:701–14.
pubmed: 30372119
doi: 10.1164/rccm.201802-0236CI
Mayr U, Lukas M, Habenicht L, Wiessner J, Heilmaier M, Ulrich J, et al. B-lines scores derived from lung ultrasound provide accurate prediction of extravascular lung water index: an observational study in critically ill patients. J Intensive Care Med. 2022;37:21–31.
pubmed: 33148110
doi: 10.1177/0885066620967655
Volpicelli G, Skurzak S, Boero E, Carpinteri G, Tengattini M, Stefanone V, et al. Lung ultrasound predicts well extravascular lung water but is of limited usefulness in the prediction of wedge pressure. Anesthesiology. 2014;121:320–7.
pubmed: 24821071
doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000300
Zhao Z, Jiang L, Xi X, Jiang Q, Zhu B, Wang M, et al. Prognostic value of extravascular lung water assessed with lung ultrasound score by chest sonography in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. BMC Pulm Med. 2015;15:1–7.
doi: 10.1186/s12890-015-0091-2
Beaubien-Souligny W, Cavayas Y, Denault A, Lamarche Y. First step toward uncovering perioperative congestive encephalopathy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020;161:149–53.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.02.146
Abe H, Kosugi S, Ozaki T, Mishima T, Date M, Ueda Y, et al. Prognostic impact of echocardiographic congestion grade in HFpEF with and without atrial fibrillation. JACC Asia. 2022;2:73–84.
Kenny J-ES. Assessing fluid intolerance with Doppler ultrasonography: a physiological framework. Med Sci. 2022;10:12.
Argaiz ER, Rola P, Haycock KH, Verbrugge FH. Fluid management in acute kidney injury: from evaluating fluid responsiveness towards assessment of fluid tolerance. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2022;11:786–93.
pubmed: 36069621
doi: 10.1093/ehjacc/zuac104
Provenzano M, Rivoli L, Garofalo C, Faga T, Pelagi E, Perticone M, et al. Renal resistive index in chronic kidney disease patients: Possible determinants and risk profile. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:1–14.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230020
Iranpour P, Lall C, Houshyar R, Helmy M, Yang A, Choi J-I, et al. Altered Doppler flow patterns in cirrhosis patients: an overview. Ultrasonography. 2016;35:3–12.
pubmed: 26169079
doi: 10.14366/usg.15020
Kattan E, Castro R, Vera M, Hernández G. Optimal target in septic shock resuscitation. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8:789–789.
pubmed: 32647714
pmcid: 7333135
doi: 10.21037/atm-20-1120
Kattan E, Hernández G, Tascón GO, Valenzuela ED, Bakker J. A lactate-targeted resuscitation strategy may be associated with higher mortality in patients with septic shock and normal capillary refill time : a post hoc analysis of the ANDROMEDA—SHOCK study. Ann Intensive Care. 2020;10:114.
pubmed: 32845407
pmcid: 7450018
doi: 10.1186/s13613-020-00732-1
Hernandez G, Ospina-Tascon G, Damiani LP, Estenssoro E, Dubin A, Hurtado J, et al. Effect of a resuscitation strategy targeting peripheral perfusion status vs serum lactate levels on 28-day mortality among patients with septic shock. The ANDROMEDA-SHOCK Randomized Clinical Trial JAMA. 2019;321:654–64.
pubmed: 30772908
Hernandez G, Luengo C, Bruhn A, Kattan E, Friedman G, Ospina-Tascon G a, et al. When to stop septic shock resuscitation: clues from a dynamic perfusion monitoring. Ann Intensive Care. 2014;4:30.
Kattan E, Bakker J, Estenssoro E, Ospina-Tascón GA, Biasi Cavalcanti A, De Backer D, Vieillard-Baron A, Teboul JL, Castro RHG. Hemodynamic phenotype-based, capillary refill time-targeted resuscitation in early septic shock : The ANDROMEDA-SHOCK-2 Randomized Clinical Trial study protocol. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2022;34:1–11.
doi: 10.5935/0103-507X.20220004-en
Hernández G, Cavalcanti AB, Ospina-Tascón G, Zampieri FG, Dubin A, Hurtado FJ, et al. Early goal-directed therapy using a physiological holistic view: the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK—a randomized controlled trial. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8:52.
pubmed: 29687277
pmcid: 5913056
doi: 10.1186/s13613-018-0398-2
Melo RH, Santos MHC dos, Ramos FJ da S. Beyond fluid responsiveness: the concept of fluid tolerance and its potential implication in hemodynamic management. Crit Care Science. 2023;35:226–9.
Volpicelli G, Elbarbary M, Blaivas M, Lichtenstein DA, Mathis G, Kirkpatrick AW, et al. International evidence-based recommendations for point-of-care lung ultrasound. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38:577–91.
pubmed: 22392031
doi: 10.1007/s00134-012-2513-4
Eskesen TG, Wetterslev M, Perner A. Systematic review including re-analyses of 1148 individual data sets of central venous pressure as a predictor of fluid responsiveness. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:324–32.
pubmed: 26650057
doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-4168-4
Gargani L, Volpicelli G. How i do it: lung ultrasound. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2014;12:1–10.
doi: 10.1186/1476-7120-12-25
Leidi A, Soret G, Mann T, Koegler F, Coen M, Leszek A, et al. Eight versus 28-point lung ultrasonography in moderate acute heart failure: a prospective comparative study. Intern Emerg Med. 2022;17:1375–83.
pubmed: 35181839
pmcid: 8856869
doi: 10.1007/s11739-022-02943-9
Castro R, Kattan E, Ferri G, Pairumani R, Valenzuela ED, Alegría L, et al. Effects of capillary refill time-vs. lactate-targeted fluid resuscitation on regional, microcirculatory and hypoxia-related perfusion parameters in septic shock: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Intensive Care. 2020;10:150.
Longino A, Martin K, Leyba K, Siegel G, Gill E, Douglas IS, et al. Correlation between the VExUS score and right atrial pressure: a pilot prospective observational study. Crit Care. 2023;27:1–5.
doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04471-0
Andrei S, Bahr PA, Nguyen M, Bouhemad B, Guinot PG. Prevalence of systemic venous congestion assessed by Venous Excess Ultrasound Grading System (VExUS) and association with acute kidney injury in a general ICU cohort: a prospective multicentric study. Crit Care. 2023;27:1–9.
doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04524-4
Viana-Rojas JA, Argaiz E, Robles-Ledesma M, Arias-Mendoza A, Nájera-Rojas NA, Alonso-Bringas AP, et al. Venous excess ultrasound score and acute kidney injury in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2023;12:413–9.
pubmed: 37154067
doi: 10.1093/ehjacc/zuad048
Fujii K, Nakayama I, Izawa J, Iida N, Seo Y, Yamamoto M, et al. Association between intrarenal venous flow from Doppler ultrasonography and acute kidney injury in patients with sepsis in critical care: a prospective, exploratory observational study. Crit Care. 2023;27:278.
pubmed: 37430356
pmcid: 10332034
doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04557-9
Li D, Wang X, Liu D. Association between elevated central venous pressure and outcomes in critically ill patients. Ann Intensive Care. 2017;7:83.
pubmed: 28795349
pmcid: 5549673
doi: 10.1186/s13613-017-0306-1
Prager R, Argaiz E, Pratte M, Rola P, Arntfield R, Beaubien-Souligny W, et al. Doppler identified venous congestion in septic shock: protocol for an international, multi-centre prospective cohort study (Andromeda-VEXUS). BMJ Open. 2023;13: e074843.
pubmed: 37487682
pmcid: 10373747
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-074843
Robba C, Wong A, Poole D, Al Tayar A, Arntfield RT, Chew MS, et al. Basic ultrasound head-to-toe skills for intensivists in the general and neuro intensive care unit population: consensus and expert recommendations of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47:1347–67.
pubmed: 34787687
pmcid: 8596353
doi: 10.1007/s00134-021-06486-z
Caltabeloti FP, Monsel A, Arbelot C, Brisson H, Lu Q, Gu WJ, et al. Early fluid loading in acute respiratory distress syndrome with septic shock deteriorates lung aeration without impairing arterial oxygenation: a lung ultrasound observational study. Crit Care. 2014;18.
Prevalska IG, Tucker R, Peter E, Fung CM. Focused cardiac ultrasound findings of fluid tolerance and fluid resuscitation in septic shock. Crit Care Explor. 2023;5: e1015.
pubmed: 38053747
pmcid: 10695585
doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000001015
Shi R, Moretto F, Prat D, Jacobs F, Teboul JL, Hamzaoui O. Dynamic changes of pulse pressure but not of pulse pressure variation during passive leg raising predict preload responsiveness in critically ill patients with spontaneous breathing activity. J Crit Care. 2022;72.