RESUMEN

In this review, we aimed to comprehensively summarize current literature on pathophysiology, relevance, diagnosis and treatment of fluid accumulation in patients with sepsis/septic shock. Fluid accumulation syndrome (FAS) is defined as fluid accumulation (any degree, expressed as percentage from baseline body weight) with new onset organ-failure. Over the years, many studies have described the negative impact of FAS on clinically relevant outcomes. While the relationship between FAS and ICU outcomes is well described, uncertainty exists regarding its diagnosis, monitoring and treatment. A stepwise approach is suggested to prevent and treat FAS in patients with septic shock, including minimizing fluid intake (e.g., by limiting intravenous fluid administration and employing de-escalation whenever possible), limiting sodium and chloride administration, and maximizing fluid output (e.g., with diuretics, or renal replacement therapy). Current literature implies the need for a multi-tier, multi-modal approach to de-resuscitation, combining a restrictive fluid management regime with a standardized early active de-resuscitation, maintenance fluid reduction (avoiding fluid creep) and potentially using physical measures such as compression stockings.Trial registration: Not applicable.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of active fluid de-resuscitation on mortality in critically ill patients with septic shock. METHODS: A systematic search was performed on PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane Library databases. Trials investigating active fluid de-resuscitation and reporting data on mortality in patients with septic shock were eligible. The primary objective was the impact of active de-resuscitation in patients with septic shock on short-term mortality. Secondary outcomes were whether de-resuscitation lead to a fluid separation, and the impact of de-resuscitation on patient-centred outcomes. RESULTS: Thirteen trials (8,030 patients) were included in the systematic review, whereof 5 randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis. None of the RCTs showed a reduction in mortality with active de-resuscitation measures (relative risk (RR) 1.12 [95%-CI 0.84 - 1.48]). Fluid separation was achieved by two RCTs. Evidence from non-randomised trials suggests a mortality benefit with de-resuscitation strategies and indicates a trend towards a more negative fluid balance. Patient-centred outcomes were not influenced in the RCTs, and only one non-randomised trial revealed an impact on the duration of mechanical ventilation and renal replacement requirement (RRT). CONCLUSION: We found no evidence for superiority of active fluid de-resuscitation compared to usual care regarding mortality, fluid balance or patient-centred outcomes in patients with septic shock. Current evidence is limited by the lack of high-quality RCTs in patients with septic shock, the small sample sizes and the heterogeneity of the applied de-resuscitation techniques. In addition, validity of the majority of RCTs is compromised by their inability to achieve fluid separation.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introduction: Fluid overload in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is associated with higher mortality. There are few randomized controlled trials to guide physicians in treating patients with fluid overload in the ICU, and no guidelines exist. We aimed to elucidate how ICU physicians from Nordic countries define, assess, and treat fluid overload in the ICU. Materials and methods: We developed an online questionnaire with 18 questions. The questions were pre-tested and revised by specialists in intensive care medicine. Through a network of national coordinators. The survey was distributed to a wide range of Nordic ICU physicians. The distribution started on January 5th, 2022 and ended on May 6th, 2022. Results: We received a total of 1,066 responses from Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Iceland. When assessing fluid status, respondents applied clinical parameters such as clinical examination findings, cumulative fluid balance, body weight, and urine output more frequently than cardiac/lung ultrasound, radiological appearances, and cardiac output monitoring. A large proportion of the respondents agreed that a 5% increase or more in body weight from baseline supported the diagnosis of fluid overload. The preferred de-resuscitation strategy was diuretics (91%), followed by minimization of maintenance (76%) and resuscitation fluids (71%). The majority declared that despite mild hypotension, mild hypernatremia, and ongoing vasopressor, they would not withhold treatment of fluid overload and would continue diuretics. The respondents were divided when it came to treating fluid overload with loop diuretics in patients receiving noradrenaline. Around 1% would not administer noradrenaline and diuretics simultaneously and 35% did not have a fixed upper limit for the dosage. The remaining respondents 63% reported different upper limits of noradrenaline infusion (0.05-0.50 mcg/kg/min) when administering loop diuretics. Conclusion: Self-reported practices among Nordic ICU physicians when assessing, diagnosing, and treating fluid overload reveals variability in the practice. A 5% increase in body weight was considered a minimum to support the diagnosis of fluid overload. Clinical examination findings were preferred for assessing, diagnosing and treating fluid overload, and diuretics were the preferred treatment modality.

RESUMEN

Background and Objectives: Albumin binding of the loop diuretic furosemide forms the basis for its transport to the kidney and subsequent tubular secretion, which is a prerequisite for its therapeutic effects. Accordingly, high albumin concentrations should result in higher efficacy of furosemide. However, study results on the combination of furosemide in conjunction with albumin, and on the efficacy of furosemide in hypoalbuminemia, did not confirm this hypothesis. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of furosemide not only in relation to albumin concentration, but also taking albumin function into account. Materials and Methods: In a prospective and non-interventional clinical observational trial, blood and urine samples from 50 intensive care patients receiving continuous intravenous furosemide therapy were evaluated. Albumin binding capacity (ABiC) determination allowed conclusions to be drawn about the binding site-specific loading state of albumin, by quantifying the unbound fraction of the fluorescent marker dansylsarcosine. In addition, assessment of the total concentration of furosemide in plasma and urine, as well as the concentration of free furosemide fraction in plasma, was performed by HPLC−MS. The efficacy of furosemide was evaluated by the ratio of urine excretion to fluid intake. Results: In patients with an ABiC ≥ 60% free furosemide fraction was significantly lower compared to patients with a lower ABiC (p < 0.001), urinary furosemide concentration was higher (p = 0.136), and a significantly higher proportion of infused furosemide was excreted renally (p = 0.010). ABiC was positively correlated (r = 0.908, p = 0.017) with increase in the urine excretion to fluid input ratio after initiation of furosemide therapy. Conclusions: ABiC could serve as a marker for individual response to furosemide and could be used to generate patient-specific therapeutic regimens. In view of the relatively low number of patients in this study, the relationship between furosemide efficacy and albumin function should be investigated in larger studies in the future.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Fluid overload is a risk factor for mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Administration of loop diuretics is the predominant treatment of fluid overload, but evidence for its benefit is very uncertain when assessed in a systematic review of randomised clinical trials. The GODIF trial will assess the benefits and harms of goal directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in ICU patients with fluid overload. METHODS: An investigator-initiated, international, randomised, stratified, blinded, parallel-group trial allocating 1000 adult ICU patients with fluid overload to infusion of furosemide versus placebo. The goal is to achieve a neutral fluid balance. The primary outcome is days alive and out of hospital 90 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are all-cause mortality at day 90 and 1-year after randomisation; days alive at day 90 without life support; number of participants with one or more serious adverse events or reactions; health-related quality of life and cognitive function at 1-year follow-up. A sample size of 1000 participants is required to detect an improvement of 8% in days alive and out of hospital 90 days after randomisation with a power of 90% and a risk of type 1 error of 5%. The conclusion of the trial will be based on the point estimate and 95% confidence interval; dichotomisation will not be used. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT04180397. PERSPECTIVE: The GODIF trial will provide important evidence of possible benefits and harms of fluid removal with furosemide in adult ICU patients with fluid overload.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Fluid overload is associated with poor outcomes. Clinicians might be reluctant to initiate diuretic therapy for patients with recent vasopressor use. We estimated the effect on 30-day mortality of withholding or delaying diuretics after vasopressor use in patients with probable fluid overload. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adults admitted to ICUs of an academic medical centre between 2008 and 2012. Using a database of time-stamped patient records, we followed individuals from the time they first required vasopressor support and had >5 L cumulative positive fluid balance (plus additional inclusion/exclusion criteria). We compared mortality under usual care (the mix of care actually delivered in the cohort) and treatment strategies restricting diuretic initiation during and for various durations after vasopressor use. We adjusted for baseline and time-varying confounding via inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: The study included 1501 patients, and the observed 30-day mortality rate was 11%. After adjusting for observed confounders, withholding diuretics for at least 24 h after stopping most recent vasopressor use was estimated to increase 30-day mortality rate by 2.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-3.6%) compared with usual care. Data were consistent with moderate harm or slight benefit from withholding diuretic initiation only during concomitant vasopressor use; the estimated mortality rate increased by 0.5% (95% CI, -0.2% to 1.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Withholding diuretic initiation after vasopressor use in patients with high cumulative positive balance (>5 L) was estimated to increase 30-day mortality. These findings are hypothesis generating and should be tested in a clinical trial.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Despite evidence highlighting harms of fluid overload, minimal guidance exists on counteraction via utilization of diuretics in the de-resuscitation phase. While diuretics have been shown to decrease net volume and improve clinical outcomes in the critically ill, a lack of standardization surrounding selection of diuretic regimen or monitoring of de-resuscitation exists. Current monitoring parameters of de-resuscitation often rely on clinical signs of fluid overload, end organ recovery and other biochemical surrogate markers which are often deemed unreliable. The majority of evidence suggests that achieving a net-negative fluid balance within 72 h after shock resolution may be of benefit; however, approaches to such goal are uncertain. Loop diuretics are a widely available type of diuretic for removal of volume in patients with sufficient kidney function, with the potential for adjunct diuretics in special circumstances. At present, administration of diuretics within the broad critically ill population fails to find uniformity and often efficacy. Given the lack of randomized controlled trials in this susceptible population, we aim to provide a thorough therapeutic understanding of diuretic pharmacotherapy which is necessary in order to achieve desired goal of fluid balance and improve overall outcomes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This comprehensive review comparatively evaluates the safety and benefits of parenteral fluids used in resuscitation with a focus on sepsis. It also provides a random-effects meta-analysis of studies comparing restrictive resuscitation and usual care in sepsis with the primary outcome of mortality. In the septic patient, fluid therapy remains a complex interplay between fluid compartments in the body, the integrity of the endothelial barrier, and the inflammatory tone of the patient. Recent data have emerged describing the pharmacokinetics of fluid resuscitation that can be affected by the factors just listed, as well as mean arterial pressure, rate of infusion, volume of fluid infusate, nature of the fluid, and drug interactions. Fluid overload in sepsis has been associated with vasodilation, kidney injury, and increased mortality. Restrictive resuscitation after the initial septic insult is an emerging practice. Our search strategy of Medline databases revealed six randomized studies with 706 patients that examined restrictive resuscitation in sepsis. Results of this meta-analysis demonstrated no differences in mortality with restrictive resuscitation compared with usual care (30.6% vs 37.8%; risk ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.66-1.05, respectively) but was limited by the small number of studies and larger quantities of pre-randomization fluids. Another approach to address fluid overload is active (diuresis) de-resuscitation strategies that may shorten the need for mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit length of stay. Data suggest that colloids may confer mortality benefit over saline in the most severely ill septic patients. Compared with isotonic saline, balanced resuscitation fluids are associated with a lower incidence of acute kidney injury and mortality. The benefits of balanced resuscitation fluids are most evident when higher volumes of fluids are used for sepsis. Clinicians should consider these pharmacotherapeutic factors when selecting a fluid, its quantity, and rate of infusion.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

In patients with septic shock, the administration of fluids during initial hemodynamic resuscitation remains a major therapeutic challenge. We are faced with many open questions regarding the type, dose and timing of intravenous fluid administration. There are only four major indications for intravenous fluid administration: aside from resuscitation, intravenous fluids have many other uses including maintenance and replacement of total body water and electrolytes, as carriers for medications and for parenteral nutrition. In this paradigm-shifting review, we discuss different fluid management strategies including early adequate goal-directed fluid management, late conservative fluid management and late goal-directed fluid removal. In addition, we expand on the concept of the "four D's" of fluid therapy, namely drug, dosing, duration and de-escalation. During the treatment of patients with septic shock, four phases of fluid therapy should be considered in order to provide answers to four basic questions. These four phases are the resuscitation phase, the optimization phase, the stabilization phase and the evacuation phase. The four questions are "When to start intravenous fluids?", "When to stop intravenous fluids?", "When to start de-resuscitation or active fluid removal?" and finally "When to stop de-resuscitation?" In analogy to the way we handle antibiotics in critically ill patients, it is time for fluid stewardship.

RESUMEN

While organ hypoperfusion caused by inadequate resuscitation has become rare in clinical practice due to the better understanding of burn shock pathophysiology, there is growing concern that increased morbidity and mortality related to over-resuscitation induced by late 20th century resuscitation strategies based on urine output, is occurring more frequently in burn care. In order to reduce complications related to this concept of "fluid creep", such as respiratory failure and compartment syndromes, efforts should be made to resuscitate with the least amount of fluid to provide adequate organ perfusion. In this second part of a concise review, the different targets and endpoints used to guide fluid resuscitation are discussed. Special reference is made to the role of intra-abdominal hypertension in burn care and adjunctive treatments modulating the inflammatory response. Finally, as urine output has been recognized as a poor resuscitation target, a new personalized stepwise resuscitation protocol is suggested which includes targets and endpoints that can be obtained with modern, less invasive hemodynamic monitoring devices like transpulmonary thermodilution.

Asunto(s)