Dataset Information

Impact of Initial Central Venous Pressure on Outcomes of Conservative Versus Liberal Fluid Management in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

ABSTRACT: In acute respiratory distress syndrome, conservative fluid management increases ventilator-free days without affecting mortality. Response to fluid management may differ based on patients' initial central venous pressure. We hypothesized that initial central venous pressure would modify the effect of fluid management on outcomes.Retrospective analysis of the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial, a multicenter randomized trial comparing conservative with liberal fluid management in acute respiratory distress syndrome. We examined the relationship between initial central venous pressure, fluid strategy, and 60-day mortality in univariate and multivariable analysis.Twenty acute care hospitals.Nine hundred thirty-four ventilated acute respiratory distress syndrome patients with a central venous pressure available at enrollment, 609 without baseline shock (for whom fluid balance was managed by the study protocol).None.Among patients without baseline shock, those with initial central venous pressure greater than 8 mm Hg experienced similar mortality with conservative and liberal fluid management (18% vs 18%; p = 0.928), whereas those with central venous pressure of 8 mm Hg or less experienced lower mortality with a conservative strategy (17% vs 36%; p = 0.005). Multivariable analysis demonstrated an interaction between initial central venous pressure and the effect of fluid strategy on mortality (p = 0.031). At higher initial central venous pressures, the difference in treatment between arms was predominantly furosemide administration, which was not associated with mortality (p = 0.122). At lower initial central venous pressures, the difference between arms was predominantly fluid administration, with additional fluid associated with increased mortality (p = 0.013).Conservative fluid management decreases mortality for acute respiratory distress syndrome patients with a low initial central venous pressure. In this population, the administration of IV fluids seems to increase mortality.

SUBMITTER: Semler MW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4792704 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of Initial Central Venous Pressure on Outcomes of Conservative Versus Liberal Fluid Management in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Semler Matthew W MW Wheeler Arthur P AP Thompson B Taylor BT Bernard Gordon R GR Wiedemann Herbert P HP Rice Todd W TW

Critical care medicine 20160401 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>In acute respiratory distress syndrome, conservative fluid management increases ventilator-free days without affecting mortality. Response to fluid management may differ based on patients' initial central venous pressure. We hypothesized that initial central venous pressure would modify the effect of fluid management on outcomes.<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective analysis of the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial, a multicenter randomized trial comparing conservative with liberal fl ...[more]

PMID: 26741580

Similar Datasets

Project description:In the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial (FACTT) of the National Institutes of Health Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network, a conservative fluid protocol (FACTT Conservative) resulted in a lower cumulative fluid balance and better outcomes than a liberal fluid protocol (FACTT Liberal). Subsequent Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network studies used a simplified conservative fluid protocol (FACTT Lite). The objective of this study was to compare the performance of FACTT Lite, FACTT Conservative, and FACTT Liberal protocols.Retrospective comparison of FACTT Lite, FACTT Conservative, and FACTT Liberal. Primary outcome was cumulative fluid balance over 7 days. Secondary outcomes were 60-day adjusted mortality and ventilator-free days through day 28. Safety outcomes were prevalence of acute kidney injury and new shock.ICUs of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network participating hospitals.Five hundred three subjects managed with FACTT Conservative, 497 subjects managed with FACTT Liberal, and 1,124 subjects managed with FACTT Lite.Fluid management by protocol.Cumulative fluid balance was 1,918 ± 323 mL in FACTT Lite, -136 ± 491 mL in FACTT Conservative, and 6,992 ± 502 mL in FACTT Liberal (p < 0.001). Mortality was not different between groups (24% in FACTT Lite, 25% in FACTT Conservative and Liberal, p = 0.84). Ventilator-free days in FACTT Lite (14.9 ± 0.3) were equivalent to FACTT Conservative (14.6 ± 0.5) (p = 0.61) and greater than in FACTT Liberal (12.1 ± 0.5, p < 0.001 vs Lite). Acute kidney injury prevalence was 58% in FACTT Lite and 57% in FACTT Conservative (p = 0.72). Prevalence of new shock in FACTT Lite (9%) was lower than in FACTT Conservative (13%) (p = 0.007 vs Lite) and similar to FACTT Liberal (11%) (p = 0.18 vs Lite).FACTT Lite had a greater cumulative fluid balance than FACTT Conservative but had equivalent clinical and safety outcomes. FACTT Lite is an alternative to FACTT Conservative for fluid management in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Project description:BackgroundThe correct identification of the appropriateness of fluid administration is important for the treatment of critically ill patients. Static and dynamic indices used to identify fluid responsiveness have been developed throughout the years, nonetheless fluid responsiveness does not indicate that fluid administration is appropriate, and indexes to evaluate appropriateness of fluid administration are lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate if central venous pressure (CVP) anddynamic indices could correctly identify fluid appropriateness for critically ill patients.MethodsData from 31 ICU patients, for a total of 53 observations, was included in the analysis. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on the appropriateness of fluid administration. Fluid appropriateness was defined in presence of a low cardiac index (< 2.5 l/min/m2) without any sign of fluid overload, as assessed by global end-diastolic volume index, extravascular lung water index or pulmonary artery occlusion pressure.ResultsFor 10 patients, fluid administration was deemed appropriate, while for 21 patients it was deemed inappropriate. Central venous pressure was not different between the two cohorts (mean CVP 11 (4) mmHg in the fluid inappropriate group, 12 (4) mmHg in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.58). The same is true for pulse pressure variation (median PPV 5 [2, 9] % in the fluid inappropriate group, 4 [3, 13] % in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.57), for inferior vena cava distensibility (mean inferior vena cava distensibility 24 (14) % in the fluid inappropriate group, 22 (16) % in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.75) and for changes in end tidal carbon dioxide during a passive leg raising test (median d.ETCO2 1.5 [0.0, 2.0]% in the fluid inappropriate group, 1.0 [0.0, 2.0] % in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.98). There was no association between static and dynamic indices and fluid appropriateness.ConclusionsCentral venous pressure, pulse pressure variation, changes in end tidal carbon dioxide during a passive leg raising test, inferior vena cava distensibility were not associated with fluid appropriateness in our cohorts.

Project description:Liberal fluid strategies in critically ill patients are associated with harm, thought to be due to endothelial and glycocalyx injury. As the restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery trial not only failed to report survival benefit with restrictive fluids but was associated with a higher rate of acute kidney injury, we hypothesized that factors other than endothelial and glycocalyx injury were likely to account for these findings. Consequently, we measured injury biomarkers in a cohort of the restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery trial.DesignThe restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery trial was an international, randomized, assessor-blinded trial comparing restrictive with liberal IV fluid regimens that represented traditional care in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.Setting and patientsCohort of restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery bloods was collected at a single major site (161 patients) prior to, day 1 and day 3 after surgery.InterventionBloods were blindly and randomly batch analyzed for plasma markers of endothelial/glycocalyx injury-angiopoietin-1, angiopoietin-2, soluble tyrosine-protein kinase-2 receptor, soluble intracellular adhesion molecule-1, syndecan, and tumor necrosis factor-α. Data were examined as restrictive versus liberal enrollment groups and high versus low (± 5,000 mL) fluid groups. Differences were examined by linear mixed modeling.Measurement and main resultsThere were no significant differences in any biomarkers between the restrictive (n = 75) and liberal (n = 86) groups. When examined as low (n = 81) and high (n = 79) fluid groups, plasma angiopoietin-2 (p = 0.009) and soluble intracellular adhesion molecule-1 (p = 0.01) were elevated in the high fluid group. There were no differences in other biomarkers.ConclusionsAlthough these results are consistent with previous findings of vascular injury following liberal fluid therapy, they suggest alternative mechanisms underlie the clinical outcomes from restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery study.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT01424150.

Dataset Information

Impact of Initial Central Venous Pressure on Outcomes of Conservative Versus Liberal Fluid Management in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Publications

Impact of Initial Central Venous Pressure on Outcomes of Conservative Versus Liberal Fluid Management in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets