Optimizing Oxygen Delivery in the Critically Ill: Assessment of Volume Responsiveness in the Septic Patient

Abstract Background Assessing volume responsiveness, defined as an increase in cardiac index after infusion of fluids, is important when caring for critically ill patients in septic shock, as both under- and over-resuscitation can worsen outcomes. This review article describes the currently availabl...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of emergency medicine 2014-11, Vol.47 (5), p.608-615
Main Authors: de Witt, Benjamin, MD, Joshi, Raj, MD, Meislin, Harvey, MD, Mosier, Jarrod M., MD
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Blood Flow Velocity
Blood Preservation
Blood Volume
Critical Illness
Emergency
Humans
Models, Biological
Monitoring, Physiologic - methods
Oxygen Inhalation Therapy - methods
Resuscitation - adverse effects
Sepsis - physiopathology
Sepsis - therapy
Shock - physiopathology
Shock - therapy
Stroke Volume
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Background Assessing volume responsiveness, defined as an increase in cardiac index after infusion of fluids, is important when caring for critically ill patients in septic shock, as both under- and over-resuscitation can worsen outcomes. This review article describes the currently available methods of assessing volume responsiveness for critically ill patients in the emergency department, with a focus on patients in septic shock. Objective The single-pump model of the circulation utilizing cardiac-filling pressures is reviewed in detail. Additionally, the dual-pump model evaluating cardiopulmonary interactions both invasively and noninvasively will be described. Discussion Cardiac filling pressures (central venous pressure and pulmonary artery occlusion pressure) have poor performance characteristics when used to predict volume responsiveness. Cardiopulmonary interaction assessments (inferior vena cava distensibility/collapsibility, systolic pressure variation, pulse pressure variation, stroke volume variation, and aortic flow velocities) have superior test characteristics when measured either invasively or noninvasively. Conclusion Cardiac filling pressures may be misleading if used to determine volume responsiveness. Assessment of cardiopulmonary interactions has superior performance characteristics, and should be preferentially used for septic shock patients in the emergency department.
ISSN:0736-4679
DOI:10.1016/j.jemermed.2014.06.015