Need for Objective Assessment of Volume Status in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: The Tri-POCUS Approach.

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to spread across the globe, the knowledge of its epidemiology, clinical features, and management is rapidly evolving. Nevertheless, the data on optimal fluid management strategies for those who develop critical illness remain sparse. Adding to the challenge, the fluid volume status of these patients has been found to be dynamic. Some present with several days of malaise, gastrointestinal symptoms, and consequent hypovolemia requiring aggressive fluid resuscitation, while a subset develop acute respiratory distress syndrome with renal dysfunction and lingering congestion necessitating restrictive fluid management. Accurate objective assessment of volume status allows physicians to tailor the fluid management goals throughout this wide spectrum of critical illness. Conventional point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) enables the reliable assessment of fluid status and reducing the staff exposure. However, due to specific characteristics of COVID-19 (e.g., rapidly expanding lung lesions), a single imaging method such as lung POCUS will have significant limitations. Herein, we suggest a Tri-POCUS approach that represents concurrent bedside assessment of the lungs, heart, and the venous system. This combinational approach is likely to overcome the limitations of the individual methods and provide a more precise evaluation of the volume status in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Perioperative fluid volume optimization following proximal femoral fracture.

BACKGROUND: Proximal femoral fracture (PFF) is a common orthopaedic emergency that affects mainly elderly people at high risk of complications. Advanced methods for managing fluid therapy during treatment for PFF are available, but their role in reducing risk is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and effectiveness of the following methods of perioperative fluid optimization in adult participants undergoing surgical repair of hip fracture: advanced invasive haemodynamic monitoring, such as transoesophageal Doppler and pulse contour analysis; a protocol using standard measures, such as blood pressure, urine output and central venous pressure; and usual care.Comparisons of fluid types (e.g. crystalloid vs colloid) and other methods of optimizing oxygen delivery, such as blood product therapies and pharmacological treatment with inotropes and vasoactive drugs, are considered in other reviews. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 9); MEDLINE (October 2012 to September 2015); and EMBASE (October 2012 to September 2015) without language restrictions. We ran forward and backward citation searches on identified trials. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished trials. This is an updated version of a review published originally in 2004 and updated first in 2013 and again in 2015. Original searches were performed in October 2003 and October 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adult participants undergoing surgical treatment for PFF that compared any two of advanced haemodynamic monitoring, protocols using standard measures or usual care, irrespective of blinding, language or publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed the impact of fluid optimization interventions on outcomes of mortality, length of hospital stay, time to medical fitness, whether participants were able to return to pre-fracture accommodation at six months, participant mobility at six months and adverse events in-hospital. We pooled data using risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) for dichotomous or continuous data, respectively, on the basis of random-effects models. MAIN RESULTS: We included in this updated review five RCTs with a total of 403 participants, and we added two new trials identified during the 2015 search. One of the included studies was found to have a high risk of bias; no trial featured all pre-specified outcomes. We found two trials for which data are awaited for classification and one ongoing trial.Three studies compared advanced haemodynamic monitoring with a protocol using standard measures; three compared advanced haemodynamic monitoring with usual care; and one compared a protocol using standard measures with usual care. Meta-analyses for the two advanced haemodynamic monitoring comparisons are consistent with both increased and decreased risk of mortality (RR Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) random-effects 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 1.20; 280 participants; RR M-H random-effects 0.45, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.95; 213 participants, respectively). The study comparing a protocol with usual care found no difference between groups for this outcome.Three studies comparing advanced haemodynamic monitoring with usual care reported data for length of stay and time to medical fitness. There was no statistically significant difference between groups for these outcomes in the two studies that we were able to combine (MD IV fixed 0.63, 95% CI -1.70 to 2.96); MD IV fixed 0.01, 95% CI -1.74 to 1.71, respectively) and no statistically significant difference in the third study. One study reported reduced time to medical fitness when comparing advanced haemodynamic monitoring with a protocol, and when comparing protocol monitoring with usual care.The number of participants with one or more complications showed no statistically significant differences in each of the two advanced haemodynamic monitoring comparisons (RR M-H random-effects 0.83, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.17; 280 participants; RR M-H random-effects 0.72, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.31; 173 participants, respectively), nor any differences in the protocol and usual care comparison.Only one study reported the number of participants able to return to normal accommodation after discharge with no statistically significant difference between groups.There were few studies with a small number of participants, and by using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group) approach, we judged the quality of the outcome evidence as low. We had included one study with a high risk of bias, but upon applying GRADE, we downgraded the quality of this outcome evidence to very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Five studies including a total of 403 participants provided no evidence that fluid optimization strategies improve outcomes for participants undergoing surgery for PFF. Further research powered to test some of these outcomes is ongoing.

Qualitative assessment of the inferior vena cava: useful tool for the evaluation of fluid status in critically ill patients.

Inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter change on limited transthoracic echocardiogram (LTTE) can provide a useful guide of fluid status evaluation in critically ill patients. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Prospective evaluation of hemodynamic status was performed in hypotensive patients via LTTE. Images were obtained using an ultrasound machine without M-mode capability. Qualitative assessment of the IVC was obtained via subxyphoid window. FLAT IVC was defined as diameter less than 2 cm and FAT IVC when the vein was equal or larger than 2 cm. Collapsibility was assessed by observing respiratory variation of the vessel. Lactate was measured before and after therapy was initiated. A follow-up LTTE was obtained after fluid challenge. A total of 108 LTTE were performed. Patients' age ranged from 18 to 89 years with an average of 53. Admission diagnosis was blunt trauma in 66 patients, penetrating trauma in 17, whereas 25 had nontraumatic intra-abdominal emergency. Sixty-nine patients were receiving mechanical ventilation at time of LTTE. Seventy-three patients had a FLAT IVC, and received fluid challenge as therapy. All patients had a change in IVC volume from "FLAT" to "FAT" after the fluid challenge. Seventy-one patients (97%) had resolution of hypotension after the first fluid challenge. Two patients had persistent hypotension and received a second fluid challenge. Follow-up LTTE demonstrated a FAT IVC and lack of collapsibility. Lactate decreased in all 73 patients after therapy guided by LTTE (P < 0.00001) Evaluation of the IVC diameter via LTTE offers a rapid, non invasive way to evaluate fluid status in critically ill patients.

Assessment of hemodynamic and gastric mucosal acidosis with modified fluid versus 6% hydroxyethyl starch: a prospective, randomized study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of 4 % succinylated modified fluid gelatin (MFG) versus mean weight, highly substituted 6% hydroxyethyl starch (HES) on hemodynamic and gastric mucosal acidosis variables, in septic hypovolemic patients. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, clinical investigation. SETTING: University hospital intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Thirty-four septic hypovolemic ventilated and hemodynamically controlled patients. INTERVENTIONS: Invasive hemodynamic and gastric tonometric measurements. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Hemodynamic and tonometric parameters were recorded at baseline and 60 min after infusion of 500 ml of each colloid. In all patients central venous pressure, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure, cardiac index and mean arterial pressure increased significantly with both colloids, and hemoglobin concentration decreased by the same amount while oxygen delivery remained stable. Gastric intramucosal pH increased from 7.27 +/- 0.08 to 7.31 +/- 0.07 (p < 0.001) with MFG and decreased non-significantly from 7.26 +/- 0.11 to 7.22 +/- 0.08 (ns) with HES. Carbon dioxide gastric mucosal arterial gradient decreased from 18 +/- 9 to 13 +/- 9 mmHg (p < 0.0005) in the MFG group and rose non-significantly from 18 +/- 11 to 21 +/- 11 mmHg with HES. CONCLUSIONS: Although MFG and 6% HES have the same hemodynamic effects, their physicochemical properties induce different responses on gastric mucosal acidosis in septic, hypovolemic and ventilated patients. These effects of MFG and HES on gastric mucosa need to be considered in patient management.

Assessment of cardiac index in anemic patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: During isovolemic hemodilution, healthy individuals maintain oxygen consumption VO2 by identical increases in cardiac index (CI) and oxygen extraction ratio (O(2)ER). In critically ill patients, the relationship between CI and O(2)ER may be different. Patients with an altered cardiac function may have a decreased CI/O(2)ER ratio, whereas patients with sepsis may have an increased CI/O(2)ER ratio. We hypothesized that the analysis of the CI-O(2)ER relationship could help us to assess the adequacy of cardiac function in critically ill patients with anemia. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: Thirty-one-bed medicosurgical ICU of a university hospital. PATIENTS: Sixty patients equipped with arterial and Swan-Ganz catheters presenting with anemia, which was defined as a hemoglobin level < or = 10 g/dL in the absence of active bleeding. Patients were classified into those with compromised cardiac function (group 1; n = 40), and those with normal cardiac function (group 2; n = 20). MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: In addition to the pertinent clinical data, initial hemodynamic measurements, including pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP), CI, and O(2)ER, were collected in all patients at the onset of anemia. As anticipated, group 1 patients (n = 40) had lower CIs, higher O(2)ER levels, and lower CI/O(2)ER ratios than group 2 patients. However, there was no significant difference in PAOP values between the groups. The CI/O(2)ER ratio was < 10 in 27 of 40 group 1 patients but only in 4 of 20 group 2 patients. Of these latter four patients, three were found to be hypovolemic, and one patient with sepsis had severe myocardial depression. There was no statistically significant difference in PAOP in group 2 patients with or without hypovolemia ([mean +/- SD] 12.3+/-2.1 mm Hg) vs 13.7+/-4.3 mm Hg; p = 0.21). In group 1, survivors had a higher CI and CI/O(2)ER ratio than nonsurvivors. In group 2, however, such a relationship did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between CI and O(2)ER level can help interpret the CI in anemic patients. In anemic patients with no cardiac history, a low CI/O(2)ER ratio (< 10) suggests hypovolemia even when CI is not depressed.