Calibrated cardiac output monitoring versus standard care for fluid management in the shocked ICU patient: a pilot randomised controlled trial

• Published in: Journal of intensive care 2019-01, Vol.7 (1), p.1-1, Article 1
• Main Authors: Scully, Timothy G, Grealy, Robert, McLean, Anthony S, Orde, Sam R
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Cardiac output monitoring; Cardiac patients; Cardiovascular equipment; Critical care; Emergency medical care; Evidence-based medicine; Fluid responsiveness; Fluids; Hospital patients; Intensive care; Medical research; Minimally invasive; Mortality; Patient monitoring equipment; Patients; Sepsis; Sepsis and fluid administration; Shock
• ISSN: 2052-0492; 2052-0492
• DOI: 10.1186/s40560-018-0356-y

Despite the evidence for calibrated cardiac monitored devices to determine fluid responsiveness, there is minimal evidence that the use of cardiac output monitor devices leads to an overall change in IV fluid use. We sought to investigate the feasibility of performing a randomised controlled study using calibrated cardiac output monitoring devices in shocked ICU patients and whether the use of these devices led to a difference in total volume of IV fluid administered. We performed a single-centre non-blinded randomised controlled study which included patients who met the clinical criteria for shock on admission to ICU. Patients were divided into two groups (cardiac output monitors or standard) by block randomisation. Patients allocated to the cardiac output monitor all received EV1000 with Volume View sets. Daily intravenous fluid administration and cumulative fluid balance was recorded for 3 days. The primary outcome assessed was the difference in daily intravenous fluid administration and cumulative fluid balance at 72 h between the two groups. We also assessed how often the clinicians used the cardiac monitor to guide fluid therapy and the different reasoning for initiating further intravenous fluids. Eighty patients were randomised and 37 received calibrated cardiac output monitors. We found no adverse outcomes in the use of calibrated cardiac output monitoring devices and that was feasible to perform a randomised controlled trial. There was no significant difference between the standard care group vs the cardiac monitoring group for cumulative fluid balance (2503 ± 3764 ml vs 2458 ± 3560 ml,  = 0.96). There was no significant difference between the groups for daily intravenous fluid administration on days 1, 2 or 3. In the cardiac monitored group, only 43% of the time was the EV1000 output incorporated into the decision to give further intravenous fluids. It is feasible to perform a randomised controlled trial using calibrated cardiac output monitoring devices. In addition, there was no trend to suggest that the use of a cardiac monitors leads to lower IV fluid use in the shocked patient. Further trials will require study designs to optimise the use of a cardiac output monitor to determine the utility of these devices in the shocked patient. ANZCTR, ACTRN12618001373268. Registered 15 August 2018-retrospectively registered.