Diagnostic Adjunct Techniques in the Assessment of Hypovolemia: A Prospective Pilot Project.

INTRODUCTION: Measuring the hypovolemic resuscitation end point remains a critical care challenge. Our project compared clinical hypovolemia (CH) with three diagnostic adjuncts: 1) noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM), 2) ultrasound (US) static IVC collapsibility (US-IVC), and 3) US dynamic carotid upstroke velocity (US-C). We hypothesized US measures would correlate more closely to CH than NICOM. METHODS: Adult trauma/surgical intensive care unit patients were prospectively screened for suspected hypovolemia after acute resuscitation, excluding patients with burns, known heart failure, or severe liver/kidney disease. Adjunct measurements were assessed up to twice a day until clinical improvement. Hypovolemia was defined as: 1) NICOM: ≥10% stroke volume variation with passive leg raise, 2) US-IVC: <2.1 cm and >50% collapsibility (nonventilated) or >18% collapsibility (ventilated), 3) US-C: peak systolic velocity increase 15 cm/s with passive leg raise. Previously unknown cardiac dysfunction seen on US was noted. Observation-level data were analyzed with a Cohen's kappa (κ). RESULTS: 44 patients (62% male, median age 60) yielded 65 measures. Positive agreement with CH was 47% for NICOM, 37% for US-IVC and 10% for US-C. None of the three adjuncts correlated with CH (κ -0.045 to 0.029). After adjusting for previously unknown cardiac dysfunction present in 10 patients, no adjuncts correlated with CH (κ -0.036 to 0.031). No technique correlated with any other (κ -0.118 to 0.083). CONCLUSIONS: None of the adjunct measurements correlated with CH or each other, highlighting that fluid status assessment remains challenging in critical care. US should assess for right ventricular dysfunction prior to resuscitation.

Pro-Con Perspectives on Ethics in Surgical Research: Update from the 39th Annual Surgical Infection Society Meeting.

Background: Surgical research is potentially invasive, high-risk, and costly. Research that advances medical dogma must justify both its ends and its means. Although ethical questions do not always have simple answers, it is critically important for the clinician, researcher, and patient to approach these dilemmas and surgical research in a thoughtful, conscientious manner. Methods: We present four ethical issues in surgical research and discuss the opposing viewpoints. These topics were presented and discussed at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Surgical Infection Society as pro-con debates. The presenters of each opinion developed a succinct summary of their respective reviews for this publication. Results: The key subjects for these pro-con debates were: (1) Should patients be enrolled for time-sensitive surgical infection research using an opt-out or an opt-in strategy? (2) Should patients who are being enrolled in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing surgery with a non-operative intervention pay the costs of their treatment arm? (3) Should the scientific community embrace open access journals as the future of scientific publishing? (4) Should the majority of funding go to clinical or basic science research? Important points were illustrated in each of the pro-con presentations and illustrated the difficulties that are facing the performance and payment of infection research in the future. Conclusions: Surgical research is ethically complex, with conflicting demands between individual patients, society, and healthcare economics. At present, there are no clear answers to these and the many other ethical issues facing research in the future. Answers will only come from continued robust dialogue among all stakeholders in surgical research.