Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: a critical analysis of the evidence.

By Frédéric Michard, J. Teboul. Chest, 2002

1,349 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Epidemiology, Surgery

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cdb0c38aaceadc87144565385191ab9c2ca4e840

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

1. R. Cavallazzi
2. P. Marik
3. X. Monnet
4. N. Anguel
5. C. Richard
6. D. Osman
7. A. Hirani
8. T. Vasu

In Epidemiology

1. P. Marik
2. R. Cavallazzi
3. F. Michard
4. X. Monnet
5. D. Osman
6. N. Anguel
7. C. Richard
8. A. Hirani

In Surgery

1. P. Marik
2. R. Cavallazzi
3. F. Michard
4. X. Monnet
5. D. Osman
6. N. Anguel
7. C. Richard
8. T. Vasu

Citations in the corpus

• Cardiac filling pressures are not appropriate to predict hemodynamic response to volume challenge* (2007, methodology): “This explanation probably accounts for the superiority of dynamic indices attempting to approach the slope of the Frank-Starling curve over “static” markers of preload (4, 5).”
• Fluid resuscitation in septic shock: A positive fluid balance and elevated central venous pressure are associated with increased mortality* (2011, background): “Thus, it seems that after the initial 12 hrs in septic shock, central venous pressure is not only unable to predict fluid responsiveness (an increase in cardiac output following fluid challenge) (14, 15), but is an unreliable marker of fluid balance.”
• Right Ventricular Function in Cardiovascular Disease, Part I: Anatomy, Physiology, Aging, and Functional Assessment of the Right Ventricle (2008, neutral): “78,79 However, individual centers vary these thresholds according to pulmonary vascular reactivity and specific anatomic lesion.”
• The respiratory variation in inferior vena cava diameter as a guide to fluid therapy (2004, background): “In a recent critical analysis [1] of studies designed to examine fluid responsiveness, we showed that, when the decision of giving fluid is based on clinical examination or/and cardiac filling pressures, the mean rate of responders to a fluid challenge is around 50%.”
• Pulse pressure variations to predict fluid responsiveness: influence of tidal volume (2005, background): “, pulmonary artery occluded pressure (PAOP) and central venous pressure (CVP) [1], reliably predict fluid responsiveness [2], as Starling curves vary considerably between patients so that a given preload may be associated with a positive response to fluid challenge (preload dependency) or with no re”
• Passive leg raising predicts fluid responsiveness in the critically ill* (2006, methodology): “Accordingly, positive-pressure ventilation-induced changes in stroke volume predict preload responsiveness in ventilator-dependent patients (1).”
• Respiratory changes in inferior vena cava diameter are helpful in predicting fluid responsiveness in ventilated septic patients (2004, background): “Tools proposed hitherto have proven insufficiently reliable, whether invasive like the measurement of central venous pressure and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, or non-invasive like the echocardiographic measurement of cavity size in diastole [5].”
• Dynamic changes in arterial waveform derived variables and fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: A systematic review of the literature* (2009, methodology): “However, clinical studies have reproducibly demonstrated that only about 50% of unstable critically ill patients will actually respond to a fluid challenge (1, 3).”