Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study A global inception cohort study

Fluid challenges (FCs) are one of the most commonly used therapies in critically ill patients and represent the cornerstone of hemodynamic management in intensive care units. There are clear benefits and harms from fluid therapy. Limited data on the indication, type, amount and rate of an FC in critically ill patients exist in the literature. The primary aim was to evaluate how physicians conduct FCs in terms of type, volume, and rate of given fluid; the secondary aim was to evaluate variables used to trigger an FC and to compare the proportion of patients receiving further fluid administration based on the response to the FC.This was an observational study conducted in ICUs around the world. Each participating unit entered a maximum of 20 patients with one FC.2213 patients were enrolled and analyzed in the study. The median [interquartile range] amount of fluid given during an FC was 500 ml (500-1000). The median time was 24 min (40-60 min), and the median rate of FC was 1000 [500-1333] ml/h. The main indication for FC was hypotension in 1211 (59 %, CI 57-61 %). In 43 % (CI 41-45 %) of the cases no hemodynamic variable was used. Static markers of preload were used in 785 of 2213 cases (36 %, CI 34-37 %). Dynamic indices of preload responsiveness were used in 483 of 2213 cases (22 %, CI 20-24 %). No safety variable for the FC was used in 72 % (CI 70-74 %) of the cases. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who received further fluids after the FC between those with a positive, with an uncertain or with a negatively judged response.The current practice and evaluation of FC in critically ill patients are highly variable. Prediction of fluid responsiveness is not used routinely, safety limits are rarely used, and information from previous failed FCs is not always taken into account

Description of antennal structures of the parasitoid Mallophora ruficauda (Diptera: Asilidae) and its relationship with resources searching behaviour

The robber fly Mallophora ruficauda is a parasitoid of white grubs (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) inhabiting in Pampas region of Argentina. Females locate host’s habitat and lay eggs away from the host in tall grasses. After hatching, larvae fall to the ground and actively seek hosts. Previous works suggested that female would detect the presence of host’s chemical cues, but sensory organs involved in olfaction are still unknown. However, few studies have looked at dipteran parasitoids sensilla, and no study has been undertaken in Asilidae species. The aim of this work was to determine the presence, density, distribution and morphology of chemosensilla in M. ruficauda antennae using optic and scanning microscope techniques. We found that antennae have 4 segments: scape, pedicel, postpedicel and style. We identified basiconic and trichoid sensilla, small and long bristles, and sensory pits. Basiconic sensilla are multiporous and are widely spread between the small bristles through the postpedicel. Trichoid sensilla are grouped in 6–8 units on latero-ventral margin of postpedicel, have mobile base, striated wall and an apical porous. Small bristles are present in the pedicel and postpedicel, and long bristles are found in groups on scape and pedicel. Three different types of sensory pits were observed, with basiconic sensilla, distributed along external and internal lateral side of the postpedicel. Considering the morphological characteristics of the antennae, and based on the olfaction biomechanics, the structure and distribution of these cuticular structures of the parasitoid antennae would contribute to the odour detection mechanism in adults of M. ruficauda.Fil: Groba, Hernán Federico. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Instituto de Ecología, Genética y Evolución de Buenos Aires. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Ecología, Genética y Evolución de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Lauria de Cidre, Lilia Susana. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Departamento de Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental. Laboratorio de Histología Animal; ArgentinaFil: Castelo, Marcela Karina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Instituto de Ecología, Genética y Evolución de Buenos Aires. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Ecología, Genética y Evolución de Buenos Aires; Argentin