Shock Management Without Formal Fluid Responsiveness Assessment: A Retrospective Analysis of Fluid Responsiveness and Its Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In order to quantify fluid administration and evaluate the clinical consequences of conservative fluid management without hemodynamic monitoring in undifferentiated shock, we analyzed previously collected data from a study of carotid Doppler monitoring as a predictor of fluid responsiveness (FR). METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of data collected from a single tertiary academic center from a previous study. Seventy-four patients were included for post-hoc analysis, and 52 of them were identified as fluid responsive (cardiac output increase > 10% with passive leg raise) according to NICOMTM bioreactance monitoring (Cheetah Medical, Newton Center, MA, USA). Treating teams provided standard of care conservative fluid resuscitation but were blinded to independently performed FR testing results. Outcomes were compared between fluid responsive and fluid non-responsive patients. Primary outcome measures were volume fluids administered and net fluid balance 24- and 72-hour post-FR assessment. Secondary outcome measures included change in vasopressor requirements, mean peak lactate levels, length of hospital/intensive care unit stay, acute respiratory failure, hemodialysis requirement, and durations of vasopressors and mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: Mean fluids administered within 72 hours were similar between fluid non-responsive and fluid responsive patients (139 mL/kg [95% confidence interval [CI]: 102.00-175.00] vs. 136 mL/kg [95% CI: 113.00-158.00], p = 0.92, respectively). We observed an insignificant trend toward higher 28-day mortality among fluid non-responsive patients (36% vs. 19%, p = 0.14). Volume of fluids administered significantly correlated with adverse outcomes such as increased hemodialysis requirements (32 patients, 43%), (odds ratio [OR] = 1.7200, p = 0.0018). Subgroup analysis suggested administering ≥ 30 mL/kg fluids to fluid responsive patients had a trend toward increased mortality (25% vs. 0%, p = 0.09) and a significant increase in hemodialysis (55% vs. 17%, p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Without formal FR assessment, similar amounts of total fluids were administered in both fluid responsive and non-responsive patients. As greater volumes of intravenous fluids administered were associated with adverse outcomes, we suggest that dedicated FR assessment may be a beneficial utility in early shock resuscitation

Ultrasound Assessment of the Change in Carotid Corrected Flow Time in Fluid Responsiveness in Undifferentiated Shock.

OBJECTIVES:Adequate assessment of fluid responsiveness in shock necessitates correct interpretation of hemodynamic changes induced by preload challenge. This study evaluates the accuracy of point-of-care Doppler ultrasound assessment of the change in carotid corrected flow time induced by a passive leg raise maneuver as a predictor of fluid responsiveness. Noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM, Cheetah Medical, Newton Center, MA) system based on a bioreactance method was used. DESIGN:Prospective, noninterventional study. SETTING:ICU at a large academic center. PATIENTS:Patients with new, undifferentiated shock, and vasopressor requirements despite fluid resuscitation were included. Patients with significant cardiac disease and conditions that precluded adequate passive leg raising were excluded. INTERVENTIONS:Carotid corrected flow time was measured via ultrasound before and after a passive leg raise maneuver. Predicted fluid responsiveness was defined as greater than 10% increase in stroke volume on noninvasive cardiac output monitoring following passive leg raise. Images and measurements were reanalyzed by a second, blinded physician. The accuracy of change in carotid corrected flow time to predict fluid responsiveness was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Seventy-seven subjects were enrolled with 54 (70.1%) classified as fluid responders by noninvasive cardiac output monitoring. The average change in carotid corrected flow time after passive leg raise for fluid responders was 14.1 ± 18.7 ms versus -4.0 ± 8 ms for nonresponders (p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated that change in carotid corrected flow time is an accurate predictor of fluid responsiveness status (area under the curve, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96) and a 7 ms increase in carotid corrected flow time post passive leg raise was shown to have a 97% positive predictive value and 82% accuracy in detecting fluid responsiveness using noninvasive cardiac output monitoring as a reference standard. Mechanical ventilation, respiratory rate, and high positive end-expiratory pressure had no significant impact on test performance. Post hoc blinded evaluation of bedside acquired measurements demonstrated agreement between evaluators. CONCLUSIONS:Change in carotid corrected flow time can predict fluid responsiveness status after a passive leg raise maneuver. Using point-of-care ultrasound to assess change in carotid corrected flow time is an acceptable and reproducible method for noninvasive identification of fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients with undifferentiated shock