A Rational Approach To Fluid Therapy in Sepsis: Journal Reading Dalam Bahasa Inggris
A Rational Approach To Fluid Therapy in Sepsis: Journal Reading Dalam Bahasa Inggris
doi: 10.1093/bja/aev349
Advance Access Publication Date: 27 October 2015
Review Article
Abstract
Aggressive fluid resuscitation to achieve a central venous pressure (CVP) greater than 8 mm Hg has been promoted as the standard of care, in the
management of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. However recent clinical trials have demonstrated that this approach does not improve
the outcome of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.
Pathophysiologically, sepsis is characterized by vasoplegia with loss of arterial tone, venodilation with sequestration of blood in the unstressed blood
compartment and changes in ventricular function with reduced compliance and reduced preload responsiveness. These data suggest that sepsis is
primarily not a volume-depleted state and recent evidence demonstrates that most septic patients are poorly responsive to fluids. Furthermore, almost
all of the administered fluid is sequestered in the tissues, resulting in severe oedema in vital organs and, thereby, increasing the risk of organ
dysfunction. These data suggest that a physiologic, haemodynamically guided conservative approach to fluid therapy in patients with sepsis would be
prudent and would likely reduce the morbidity and improve the outcome of this disease.
Key words: central venous pressure;fluid therapy; pulmonary edema; sepsis; septic shock
patients with septic shock were treated with massive amounts of crystalloids,
approaching 17 litres in the first 72 h of hospitalization.3 4This
Editor’s key points approach was considered the standard of care and endorsed by International
• The authors review, in detail, the physiology of hypo-and Guidelines.5–7 Clearly, these treatment approaches failed to appreciate the
hypervolaemia, and the effects of venodilation and arteriodilation. pathophysiological changes of both disor-ders and that the prescribed
treatments were harmful. Cholera is a disease associated with profound
• They contend that universal, aggressive fluid administra-tion in septic volume depletion through diarrhoea that requires replacement with i.v.fluids.1
2
shock carries considerable risk, and that a haemodynamically-guided, Severesep-sis and septic shock however, are not associated with volume
conservative approach is likely to produce better outcome. loss. Sepsis is characterized by arterio- and venodilation together with
microcirculatory and myocardial dysfunction, with septic patients being
• They also argue that early norepinephrine therapy is likely to improve poorly responsive to fluid administration. Never-theless, aggressive fluid
outcome. resuscitation to achieve a central venous pressure (CVP) greater than 8 mm
Hg (‘Early Goal Directed Therapy’ - EGDT), has been considered the
standard of care in the management of patients with severe sepsis and septic
shock.5–7 However, recent multicentre clinical trials (ProCESS, ARISE and
PROMISE) and a meta-analysis of EGDT have demonstrated that this
In the 19th century, patients with cholera dying from hypovol-aemic shock approach does not improve the outcome of patients with se-vere sepsis and
were treated by venesection or blood-letting.1 2This treatment was considered septic shock.8–11 This article reviews the haemo-dynamic changes associated
the standard of care for this dis-order. In the first part of the 21st century with sepsis and provides a rational approach to fluid management in this
complex disorder.
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. All rights reserved. For Permissions,
please email: [email protected]
339
340 | Marik and Bellomo
shock who received a fluid challenge. In these patients, fluid loading will oxygen and metabolite diffusion, distorts tissue architecture, impedes
increase cardiac filling pressures, increase venous and pulmonary hydrostatic capillary blood flow and lymphatic drainage and dis-turbs cell-cell
pressures with the increased release of natriuretic peptides with minimal (if interactions.52 53 Increased right atrial pressure (CVP) is transmitted
any) increase in SV. Furthermore, as reviewed above, aggressive fluid backwards increasing venous pressure in vital organs, with a profound effect
resuscitation in itself causes diastolic dysfunction which will compound the on microcirculatory flow and organ function.19 The kidney is particularly
pre-existing and/or sepsis-induced diastolic dysfunction. affected by increased venous pressure, which leads to increased renal sub-
capsular pressure and reduced renal blood flow and glomerular filtration
rate.52
Fluid responsiveness
The widely accepted rationale behind fluid resuscitation in sepsis is to
Fluid responsiveness and the haemodynamic
improve cardiac output and organ perfusion, thereby limit-ing organ
dysfunction. Logically, therefore, the only reason to re-suscitate a patient effects of fluids in patients with sepsis
with fluid (give a fluid bolus) would be to cause a clinically significant Studies in heterogeneous groups of critically ill and injured pa-tients and
increase in SV. A patient whose SV increases by 10–15% after a fluid those undergoing surgery have reproducibly demon-strated that only about
challenge (250–500 ml) is consid-ered to be a fluid responder.50 Nonetheless, 50% of haemodynamically unstable patients are fluid responders.50 54–56 This
according to the Frank-Starling principle, as the preload increases, SV is a fundamental con-cept which is not widely appreciated,57 58 and
increases until the optimal preload is achieved, at which point the SV remains challenges the widely accepted notion that fluid administration is the ‘corner-
relatively constant.50 If the fluid challenge does not in-crease SV, volume stone of resuscitation’.5–7 59 As a result of the effects of sepsis on the venous
loading serves the patient no useful benefit and is likely harmful. The adverse capacitance vessels and myocardial function, it is likely that less than 40% of
effects of fluid loading when a patient is on the flat portion of the Frank- hypotensive patients with severe sepsis or septic shock are ‘fluid
Starling curve, is re-lated to the curvilinear shape of the left ventricular responders’.60–62
pressure-volume curve, resulting from altered diastolic compliance at higher
filing pressures.16–18 As the patient reaches the plateau of his/her Frank- The goal of fluid resuscitation is to increase the stressed blood volume
Starling curve, atrial pressures increase, increas-ing venous and pulmonary and MCFP more than the CVP, and thereby increase the pressure gradient for
hydrostatic pressures which com-bined with the increased release of venous return. However the ability of crys-talloids (the most common fluid
natriuretic peptides, causes a shift of fluid into the interstitial space, with an used for the resuscitation of patients with sepsis) to expand the intravascular
increase in pul-monary and tissue oedema (see Fig. 1). Tissue oedema volume is poor. Chowdhury and colleagues63 reported that in healthy
impairs volunteers, only 15% of a crystalloid bolus remained in the intra-vascular
space at 3 h, with 50% of the infused volume being in the
EVLW
SV
B Small increase in CO
Large increase in CO
A
Small increase in EVLW
Preload
Fig 1 Superimposition of the Frank-Starling and Marik-Phillips curves demonstrating the effects of increasing preload on stroke volume and lung water in a patientwho is pre-load responsive ( )
and non-responsive ( ). With sepsis the EVLW curve is shifted to the left. 51 EVLW=extra-vascular lung water; CO=cardiac output; SV=stroke volume. MCFP=mean circulating filling pressure.
Reproduced with permission from the British Journal Anaesthesia; 2014;12:620–622.
342 | Marik and Bellomo
extravascular extracellular compartment. In patients with sepsis and in delivery, and attempts at increasing oxygen delivery do not in-crease oxygen
experimental models, less than 5% of a crystalloid bolus remains consumption or lower lactate concentrations. In-deed such an approach has
intravascular an hour after the end of the infusion.64 65 It is therefore likely been demonstrated to increase the risk of death of critically ill patients. 74
that the haemodynamic effects of a fluid bolus (in the fluid responders) are
short-lived, with the net effect being the shift of fluid into the interstitial These data suggest that only patients who are fluid respon-sive should be
compartment with tis-sue oedema. Nunes and colleagues66 demonstrated that treated with fluid boluses. Furthermore, the patients’fluid responsiveness and
in fluid responders, the SV returned to baseline 60 min after a crystalloid the risk/benefit ratio of fluid administration needs to be determined before
bolus. Glassford and colleagues67 performed a systematic review which each fluidbolus.75 As the haemodynamic response to a fluid challenge is very
examined the haemodynamic response of fluid boluses in patients with sepsis. short-lived and large fluid boluses (20–30 ml kg−1) are associated with severe
These authors reported that while the mean arterial pressure (MAP) increased volume overload, the mini-fluid bolus approach (200–500 ml) to fluid therapy
by 7.8 (3.8) mm Hg immediately after the fluid bolus, the MAP had returned
is recommended.76 The passive leg raising manoeuvre (PLR) and the fluid
close to baseline at one h with no increase in urine output. In a retrospective
bolus test coupled with real-time SV monitoring, are currently the only
analysis of the ARDSnet Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial
techniques which have an acceptable degree of clinical accuracy, which can
(FACTT),68Lammi and colleagues62 examined the physiological effect of
be used for determining fluid responsiveness.51 Because of its ease of use,
simplicity, high diagnostic accuracy, inherent safety and short procedure time
(less than 5 min to per-form) the PLR is the preferred method to assess fluid
569 fluid boluses (15 ml kg−1; 1025±243 ml) in 127 patients (themajority of
responsive-ness in the emergency department, hospital ward and ICU.51 75
whom were septic), randomized to the pulmonary ar-tery catheter arm of the
The PLR manoeuvre is performed by lifting the legs passively from the
study. The FACTT trial required reassess-ment of the haemodynamic profile
horizontal position and is associated with the gravitational transfer of blood
one h after the fluid bolus, if the indication for fluids was shock, ineffective (about 300 ml) from the lower limbs and abdo-men toward the intrathoracic
circulation, or low
compartment.75 77 78 The PLR man-oeuvre has the advantage of reversing its
urine output and four h if the indication was a low pulmonary artery
effects once the legs are returned to the horizontal position. 75 79 80 Therefore,
occlusion pressure (PAOP).68 Fifty-eight percent of fluid boluses were given
the PLR manoeuvre is considered a reversible or ‘virtual’fluid challenge. The
for shock or poor urine output/ineffective cir-culation, with 42% of boluses
ability of the PLR manoeuvre to serve as a test of preload re-sponsiveness has
given for a low PAOP. In this study, only 23% of patients were fluid
been confirmed in multiple studies performed in critically ill patients. A
responders (increase in CI > 15%). There was a small increase in the MAP meta-analysis, which pooled the results of eight studies, confirmed the
(78.3 16.4 to 80.4 16.5 mm Hg) while the urine output did not change in the excellent value of PLR to predict fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients
1–4 h after the
with a global areaunder the ROC curve of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92–0.95).81 In an
fluid bolus.
updated meta-analysis which evaluated 21 studies, we report a pooled ROC
Monge-Garcia and colleagues69 measured the effects of a fluid bolus on AUC of 0.93–0.95 (Monnet X, Marik P, Teboul JL; submitted for
arterial load in patients with septic shock. In thisstudy 67% of patients were publication). As the maximal haemodynamic effects of PLR occur within the
fluid responders, however the MAP increased in only 44% of these patients first min of leg elevation,75 80 it is important to assess these effects with a
(pressure responder). Over-all there was a significant reduction in effective method able to track changes in car-diac output or SV on a real-time basis. It
arterial elastance (Ea) and systemic vascular resistance (SVR), this effect is important to note that the change in bp after a PLR or fluid challenge is a
being most marked in the pre-load responders who were pressure non- poor guide to fluid responsiveness; SV may increase without a signifi-cant
change in bp.70 Furthermore, unlike techniques to deter-mine fluid
responders. Additional studies have demonstrated a decrease in SVR after responsiveness based on heart-lung interactions, the PLR manoeuvre can be
fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis.70 71Thissug-gests that fluid boluses performed in spontaneously breathing patients, patients with cardiac
should be considered vasodilator therapy, in patients with sepsis and that arrhythmias and those receiving low tidal volume ventilation.75 51
aggressive fluid resuscitation may potentiate the hyperdynamic state.
that a normal CVP is between 0–2 mm Hg; this is necessary to en-sure sepsis is considered to be a ‘hypermetabolic’ condition oxygen consumption
adequate venous return and cardiac output (as discussed above). In addition, and energy expenditure are broadly comparable with that of normal people,
while the change in CVP in response to a fluid challenge is still widely with energy expenditure decreasing with increasing sepsis severity. 103–105
promoted as a method to guide fluid therapy,57this technique has no Therefore, there is no re-quirement that oxygen delivery increase with sepsis.
physiologic basis and isunable to predict fluid responsiveness with any degree Indeed, in-creasing oxygen delivery in patients with sepsis does not increase
of accur-acy.54 91 Furthermore, it should be noted that with the exception of oxygen consumption nor decrease lactate concentra-tions.106 107 The critical
measuring dynamic changes in the carotid Doppler peak velocity, 86 92 93 oxygen delivery threshold for humans (both septic and non-septic) is
bedside ultrasound including the inferior vena cavaldistensibility index approximately 3.8 (1.5) ml min−1 kg−1 (270 ml min−1 in a 70 kg patient).108
cannot accurately predict fluid respon-siveness.51 82 85 86 It is somewhat
These values translate into a cardiac output of approximately 2 Litre min −1; it
astonishing that the ScvO2 is still being recommended to guide the is likely that only pre-terminal moribund patients with septic shock would
resuscitation of critically ill septic patients and is being used as an indicator have such a low cardiac output.
of the quality of care delivered.72 88 Monitoring the ScvO2 in patients with
sepsis has no scientific basis, as patients with sepsis usually have a normal or
increased ScvO2,94 95 and a high (ScvO2> 90%) rather than low ScvO2 has
been demonstrated to be an independ-ent predictor of death.96 Three large
randomized controlled trials (ProCESS, ARISE and PROMISE) have now Evidence supporting the deleterious effects of
demonstrated that ti-trating therapy to a ScvO2> 70% does not improve aggressive fluid resuscitation
outcome,8–10 but rather increases the risk of organ dysfunction, length of The harmful effects of aggressive fluid resuscitation on the out-come of
ICU stay and increased use of resources and costs.10 These observa-tions sepsis are supported by experimental studies and data accumulated from
must lead to the conclusion that the original EGDT study was not clinical trials.109 110 Multiple clinical studies have demonstrated an
scientifically valid and that no aspect of this study should be used to guide the
independent association between an increasingly positive fluid balance and
management of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.3 97 98
increased mortality in patient with sepsis.29 111–120 The most compelling data
that fluid loading in sepsis is harmful, comes from the landmark ‘Fluid
Expansion as Supportive Therapy(FEAST)’ study performedin 3141 sub-
Saharan children with severe sepsis.121 In this rando-mized study, aggressive
fluid loading was associated with a sig-nificantly increased risk of death.
In addition to targeting a CVP greater than 8 mm Hg, the Sur-viving
Sepsis Campaign guideline recommends ‘targeting resusci-tation to normalize After the Rivers’ Early Goal Directed Therapy trial,3 which formed the basis
lactate in patients with elevated lactate levels as a marker of tissue for the concept of early aggressive fluid resuscitation, a number of EGDT
hypoperfusion’.7 This recommendation is based on the notion that an elevated studies have been published.4 8–10 122 An analysis of these studies de-
lactate is a consequence of tissue hypoxia and inadequate oxygen delivery. 95 monstrates a marked reduction in mortality over this time period (see Fig. 2).
While all these studies emphasized the early use of appropriate antibiotics,
However, these asser-tions are likely wrong.99 Hotchkiss and Karl100 in a
the decline in the amount of fluids admi-nistered in the first 72 h is striking.
seminal re-view published over 20 yr ago, demonstrated that cellular hypoxia Furthermore as illustrated in Fig. 3there is a very strong correlation between
and bioenergetic failure does not occur in sepsis. It has now been well the amount of fluid administered (in first 6 h) and the target CVP. It should
established that epinephrine released as part of the stress response in patients benoted that the CVP in the usual arm of both the ARISE (The Australasian
with severe sepsis, stimulates Na+ K+-ATPase activity. Increased activity of Resuscitation in Sepsis Evaluation) and ProMISe (Protocolised Management
Na+ K+ ATPase leads to increased lactate production under well-oxygenated in Sepsis) trials was greater than 10 mm Hg, being almost identical to the
conditions in various cells, including erythrocytes, vascular smooth muscle, EGDT arm, and with
neurons, glia, and skeletal muscle.101 102 While
60 14 5000
Fluids 0–72 h Rivers et al.
50
Mortality 4500
12 Jones et al.
4000
40
10
%
Fluids _6 h
Litres
3500
Mortalit
30 8
R2=0.84
y
3000
20
Jansen et al.
2500
6
10 PROMISE
2000
0 4 ARISE
Rivers Jansen ProCESS ARISE PROMISE 1500
APACHE II 21 24 21 15 18.7 11 12 13 14 15
CVP
Fig 2 Fluid administered between enrolment and 72 h and 90-day mortalityin the control
arm of the Early Goal Directed Therapy (EGDT) Studies performed between 2001 and Fig 3 Fluid administered between enrolment and 6 h and central venouspressure (CVP) at
2015. APACHE II=APACHE II Severity of illness scoring system (0–71). h in the Early Goal Directed arm of the EGDT studies performed between 2001 and
2015.
344 | Marik and Bellomo
almost an identical amount of fluid being administered in the usual arm, as in cardiac index, systemic vascular resistance and central blood vo-lumes
the active EGDT arm in both studies.9 10Clini-cians seem compelled to give (intrathoracic blood volume, global end-diastolic volume), as measured by
fluid when the CVP is less than 8 mm Hg; the only solution to this pervasive transpulmonarythermodilution. In this study extra-vascular lung water
problem is to stop measuring the CVP. (EVLW) remained unchanged. Ham-zaoui and colleagues140 demonstrated
that the early administra-tion of norepinephrine increased preload, cardiac
output and MAP largely reversing the haemodynamic abnormalities of se-
A haemodynamically-guided conservative fluid verevasodilatory shock. Abid and colleagues141 demonstrated that the early
use of norepinephrine in patients with septic shock was a strong predictor of
resuscitation strategy survival. These studies demon-strate that in patients with septic shock, the
These data strongly support a haemodynamically-guided fluid resuscitation early use of norepin-ephrine restores the stressed blood volume, increasing
strategy in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Furthermore, from an the MCFP, venous return and cardiac output. The increase in the stressed
evolutionary point of view, humans have evolved to deal with hypovolemia blood volume is as a result of the mobilisation of blood, rather than the short-
and not hypervolemia. Large fluid boluses may counter the life preserving lived effect of a volume expander. Therefore un-like fluids, the effect of α-1
homeostatic mechanisms in unstable critically ill patients, increasing the risk agonists on venous return is enduring and not associated with tissue oedema.
of death.123In some patients, hypotension and tachycardia do resolve with α-1 agonists should not be used in patients with hypovolaemic shock (e.g.
limited fluid resuscitation. It is likely that many of these patients have super- cholera) who are already venoconstricted; in this setting, α-1 agonists will
added dehydration as a result of poor oral intake and a delay in seeking cause severe vasoconstriction, impairing organ blood flow. How-ever, in
medical attention. How-ever, fluids alone will not reverse the haemodynamic septic veno- and arterio-dilated patients, α-1 agonists in-crease venous return,
instability of patients with more severe sepsis; in these patients, fluids alone increase stroke volume and increase arterial tone, thereby increasing organ
are likely to exacerbate the vasodilatory shock and increase the capillary leak blood flow.142–144 Digital and limb ischaemia and ischaemic skin lesions are
and tissue oedema. Based on these data, the initial resuscitation of patients extremely rare with the use of norepinephrine,145 occurring usually with high
with septic shock should logically include at most 500 ml boluses of
dosages and usually when used together with vasopres-sin.146 147
crystalloid (Ringer’s lactate), to a maximum of about 20 ml kg−1.124 Ideally,
Furthermore, uncontrolled disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC)
fluid resuscitation should be guided by the determination of fluid
plays a contributing role in these patients.148 We are unaware of any reported
responsiveness.50 51 Normal saline is an ‘unphysiologic’ solution that should
patients with digital or limb ischaemia associated with the early use of
be avoided, except in patients with acute neurological injuries. Nor-mal
norepinephrine. In our experience the early use of norepinephrine appears to
saline causes a hyperchloraemic metabolic acidosis125–128; it decreases renal reduce the peak and total dose of vasopressors administered. It is noteworthy
blood flow63 increasing the risk of renal failure.129 In patients with sepsis, the that norepinephrine may be safely given through a well-functioning
use of normal saline as compared with physiologic salt solutions, has been peripheral venous catheter,149 precluding the requirement for emergent
130
associated with an increased risk of death. Similarly, synthetic starch central venous catheterization, which is generally regarded as an obstacle to
solutions increase the risk of renal failure and death in patients with sepsis the early use of norepinephrine. In experimental sepsis models,
and should be avoided.131 132 norepinephrine appears preferable to epinephrine and phenylephrine as a first-
line therapy in restoring haemodynamic stability.150 151Dopamine as opposed
to norepinephrine is associated with an increased risk of arrhythmias and
death in patients with sepsis and should be avoided.152–154
35. Ohhashi T, Watanabe N, Kawai Y, Ohhashi T, Watanabe N, Kawai Y. fluid responsiveness: a “gray zone” approach.Anesthesiol
Effects of atrial natriuretic peptide on isolated bo-vine mesenteric 2011; 115: 231–41
lymph vessels. Am J Physiol 1990; 259: H42–7 57. Vincent JL, Pelosi P, Pearse R, et al. Perioperative cardiovascu-lar
36. Landry DW, Oliver JA. Pathogenesis of vasodilatory shock. N Engl J monitoring of high-risk patients: a consensus of 12. Crit Care 2015; 19:
Med 2001; 345: 588–95 224
37. Ait-Oufella H, Maury E, Lehoux S, Guidet B, Offenstadt G. The 58. Wilms H, Mittal A, Haydock MD, van den Heever M, Devaud M,
endothelium: physiological functions and role in microcir-culatory Windsor JA. A systematic review of goal directed fluid therapy: Rating
failure during severe sepsis. Intensive Care Med 2010; 36: 1286–98 of evidence for goals and monitoringmethods. J Crit Care 2014; 29:
204–9
38. Goldenberg NM, Steinberg BE, Slutsky AS, Lee WL. Broken barriers: 59. Hollenberg SM, Ahrens TS, Annane D, et al. Practice para-meters for
a new take on sepsis pathogenesis. Sci Translation Med 2011; 3: hemodynamic support of sepsis in adult pa-tients: 2004 update. Crit
88ps25 Care Med 2004; 32: 1928–48
39. Hernandez G, Bruhn A, Ince C. Microcirculation in sepsis: new 60. Smith B, Phillips R, Madigan V, West M. Decreased mortality,
perspectives. CurrVasc Pharm 2013; 11: 161–9 morbidity and emergency transport in septic shock: A new protocol
40. De Backer D, Creteur J, Preiser JC, Dubois MJ, Vincent JL. based on advanced noninvasive haemodynamics and early antibiotics
Microvascular blood flow is altered in patients with sepsis. Am J [abstract]. Crit Care Med 2013; 40: 1–17
RespirCrit Care Med 2002; 166: 98–104 61. Mallat J, Meddour M, Durville E, et al. Mini-fluid challenge in patients
41. Trzeciak S, Rivers E. Clinical manifestations of disordered with low-volume mechanical ventilation: the de-crease in pulse
microcirculatory perfusion in severe sepsis. Crit Care 2005; 9 (suppl 4): pressure and stroke volume variations accur-ately predicts fluid
S20–6 responsiveness. Br J Anaesth 2015; 115: 449–56
42. Parker MM, Shelhamer JH, Bacharach SL, et al. Profound but
reversible myocardial depression in patients with septic shock. Ann 62. Lammi MR, Aiello B, Burg GT, et al. Response to fluid boluses in the
Intern Med 1984; 100: 483–90 fluid and catheter treatment trial. Chest Advance Ac-cess published on
43. Sanfilippo F, Corredor C, Fletcher N, et al. Diastolic dysfunc-tion and May 28, 2015. doi: 10.1378/chest.15-0445
mortality in septic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 63. Chowdhury AH, Cox EF, Francis S, Lobo DN. A randomized,
Intensive Care Med 2015; 41: 1004–13 controlled, double-blind crossover study on the effects of 2-L infusions
44. Landesberg G, Gilon D, Meroz Y, et al. Diastolic dysfunction and of 0.9% saline and plasma-lyte 148 on renal blood flow velocity and
mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock. Eur Heart J 2012; 33: 895– renal cortical tissue perfusion in healthy volunteers. Ann Surg 2012;
903 256: 18–24
45. Brown SM, Pittman JE, Hirshberg EL, et al. Diastolic dysfunc-tion and 64. Sanchez M, Jimenez-Lendinez M, Cidoncha M, et al. Com-parison of
mortality in early severe sepsis and septic shock: a prospective, fluid compartments and fluid responsiveness in septic and non-septic
observational echocardiography study. Crit Ultrasound J 2012; 4: 8 patients. Anaesth Intensive Care 2011; 39: 1022–9
46. Cheitlin MD. Cardiovascular physiology-changes with aging. Am J 65. Bark BP, Oberg CM, Grande PO. Plasma volume expansion by 0.9%
GeriatrCardiol 2003; 12: 9–13 NaCl during sepsis/systemic inflammatory response syndrome, after
47. Pieske B, Wachter R. Impact of diabetes and hypertension on the heart. hemorrhage, and during a normal state. Shock 2013; 40: 59–64
CurrOpinCardiol 2008; 23: 340–9
48. Russo C, Jin Z, Homma S, et al. Effect of obesity and over-weight on 66. Nunes T, Ladeira R, Bafi A, de Azevedo L, Machado F, Freitas F.
left ventricular diastolic function: a community-based study in an Duration of hemodynamic effects of crystalloids in patients with
elderly cohort. J Am CollCardiol 2011; 57: 1368–74 circulatory shock after initial resuscitation. Ann Intensive Care 2014; 4:
25
49. Ognibene FP, Parker MM, Natanson C, Shelhamer JH, Parrillo JE. 67. Glassford NJ, Eastwood GM, Bellomo R. Physiological changes after
Depressed left ventricular performance: response to volume infusion in fluid bolus therapy in sepsis: a systematic re-view of contemporary
patients with sepsis and septic shock. Chest 1988; 93: 903–10 data. Crit Care 2014; 18: 2557
68. Wioedemann HP, Wheeler AP, Bernard GR, et al. Comparison of two
50. Marik PE, Monnet X, Teboul JL. Hemodynamic parameters to guide fluid-management strategies in acute lung injury. N Engl J Med 2006;
fluid therapy. Ann Crit Care 2011; 1: 1 354: 2564–75
51. Marik PE, Lemson J. Fluid responsiveness: An evolution of 69. Monge-Garcia MI, Gonzalez PG, Romero MG, et al. Effects of fluid
our understanding. Br J Anaesth 2014; 112: 620–2 administration on arterial load in septic shockpatients. Intensive Care
52. Prowle JR, Kirwan CJ, Bellomo R. Fluid management for the Med 2015; 41: 1247–55
prevention and attenuation of acute kidney injury. Nat Rev Nephrol 70. Pierrakos C, Velissaris D, Scolletta S, Heenen S, De BD, Vincent JL.
2014; 10: 37–47 Can changes in arterial pressure be used to de-tect changes in cardiac
53. Hilton AK, Bellomo R. A critique of fluid bolus resuscitation in severe index during fluid challenge in pa-tients with septic shock? Intensive
sepsis. Crit Care 2012; 16: 302 Care Med 2012; 38: 422–8
54. Marik PE, Cavallazzi R. Does the Central Venous Pressure (CVP) 71. Monnet X, Chemla D, Osman D, et al. Measuring aortic diam-eter
predict fluid responsiveness: An update meta-analysis and a plea for improves accuracy of esophageal Doppler in assessing fluid
some common sense.Crit Care Med 2013; 41: 1774–81 responsiveness.Crit Care Med2007;35: 477–82
72. Surviving Sepsis Campaign; 6 hour bundle revised.
55. Biais M, Ehrmann S, Mari A, et al. Clinical relevance of pulse pressure http://www.survivingsepsis.org/News/Pages/SSC-Six-Hour-Bundle-
variations for predicting fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated Revised.aspx 2015.(Acessed 4-9-2015)
intensive care unit patients: the grey zone approach. Crit Care 2014; 18: 73. Marik PE. Iatrogenic salt water drowning and the hazards of a high
587 central venous pressure. Ann Intensive Care 2014; 4: 21
56. Cannesson M, Le MY, Hofer CK, et al. Assessing the diagnos-tic 74. Hayes MA, Timmins AC, Yau E, Palazzo M, Hinds CJ, Watson D.
accuracy of pulse pressure variations for the prediction of Elevation of systemic oxygen delivery in the
Fluid and sepsis | 347
treatment of critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 1994; 330: responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with coronary artery
1717–22 disease. Br J Anaesth 2014; 113: 61–6
75. Monnet X, Teboul JL. Passive leg raising: five rules, not a drop 93. Marik PE, Levitov A, Young A, Andrews L. The use of NICOM
offluid!. Crit Care 2015; 19: 18 (Bioreactance) and Carotid Doppler to determine volume
76. Marik PE. Fluid therapy in 2015 and beyond: The mini-fluid challenge responsiveness and blood flow redistribution following passive leg
and mini-fluid bolus approach. Br J Anaesth 2015; 115: 347–9 raising in hemodynamically unstable patients. Chest 2013; 143: 364–70
77. Monnet X, Teboul JL. Passive leg raising. Intensive Care Med 2008; 94. Krafft P, Steltzer H, Hiesmayr M, Klimscha W, Hammerle AF. Mixed
34: 659–63 venous oxygen saturation in critically ill septic shock patients. The role
78. Teboul JL, Monnet X. Prediction of volume responsiveness in critically of defined events. Chest 1993; 103: 900–6
ill patients with spontaneous breathing activity. CurrOpinCrit Care
2008; 14: 334–9 95. Angus DC, van der Poll T. Severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J
79. Boulain T, Achard JM, Teboul JL, Richard C, Perrotin D, Ginies G. Med 2013; 369: 840–51
Changes in BP induced by passive leg raising pre-dict response to fluid 96. Pope JV, Jones AE, Gaieski DF, Arnold RC, Trzeciak S, Shapiro NI.
loading in critically ill patients. Chest 2002; 121: 1245–52 Multicenter study of central venous oxygen sat-uration (ScvO(2)) as a
predictor of mortality in patients with sepsis. Ann Emerg Med 2010;
80. Monnet X, Rienzo M, Osman D, et al. Passive leg raising pre-dictsfluid 55: 40–6
responsiveness in the critically ill. Crit Care Med 2006; 34: 1402–7 97. Burton TM. New therapy for sepsis infection raises hope but many
questions (lead article). The Wall Street Journal August 14th, 2008.
81. Cavallaro F, Sandroni C, Marano C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of New York, NY, Dow Jone and Company, Inc. (Acessed 14 August
passive leg raising for prediction of fluid responsiveness in adults: 2008)
systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies. Intensive Care 98. Marik PE. The demise of early goal-directed therapy for se-vere sepsis
Med 2010; 36: 1475–83 and septic shock. ActaAnaesthesiolScand 2015; 59: 561–7
82. Wetterslev M, Haase N, Johansen RR, Perner A. Predicting fluid
responsiveness with transthoracic echocardiographyis not yet evidence 99. Garcia-Alvarez M, Marik P, Bellomo R. Sepsis-associated hy-
based. ActaAnaesthesiolScand 2013; 57: 692–7 perlactatemia. Crit Care 2014; 18: 503
100. Hotchkiss RS, Karl IE. Reevaluation of the role of cellular hypoxia and
83. Muller L, Bobbia X, Toumi M, et al. Respiratory variations of inferior bioenergetics failure in sepsis. JAMA 1992; 267: 1503–10
vena cava diameter predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously
breathing patients with acute circulatory failure: need for a cautious 101. James JH, Luchette FA, McCarter FD, Fischer JE. Lactate is an
use. Crit Care 2012; 16: R188 unreliable indicator of tissue hypoxia in injury or sepsis. Lancet 1999;
84. Juhl-Olsen P, Vistisen ST, Christiansen LK, Rasmussen LA, 354: 505–8
Frederiksen CA, Sloth E. Ultrasound of the inferior vena cava does not 102. James JH, Fang CH, Schrantz SJ, Hasselgren PO, Paul RJ, Fischer JE.
predict hemodynamic response to early hem-orrhage. J Emerg Med Linkage of aerobic glycolysis to sodium-potas-sium transport in rat
2013; 45: 592–7 skeletal muscle. Implications for in-creased muscle lactate production
85. Corl K, Napoli AM, Gardiner F. Bedside sonographic measurement of in sepsis. J Clin Invest 1996; 98: 2388–97
the inferior vena cava caval index is a poor predictor of fluid
responsiveness in emergency department patients. Emergency 103. Uehara M, Plank LD, Hill GL. Components of energy expend-iture in
Medicine Australasia 2012; 24: 534–9 patients with severe sepsis and major trauma: a basis for clinical care.
Crit Care Med 1999; 27: 1295–302
86. Ibarra-Estrada MA, Lopez-Pulgarin JA, Mijangos-Mendez JC, Diaz- 104. Kreymann G, Grosser S, Buggisch P, Gottschall C, Matthaei S, Greten
Gomez JL, Aguirre-Avalos G. Variation in carotid peak systolic H. Oxygen consumption and resting metabolic rate in sepsis, sepsis
velocity predicts volume responsiveness in mech-anically ventilated syndrome, and septic shock. Crit Care Med 1993; 21: 1012–9
patients with septic shock: A prospective cohort study. Crit Ultrasound
J 2015; 7: 12 105. Subramaniam A, McPhee M, Nagappan R. Predicting energy
87. Saugel B, Ringmaier S, Holzapfel K, et al. Physical examin-ation, expenditure in sepsis: Harris-Benedict and Schofield equa-tions versus
central venous pressure, and chest radiography for the prediction of the Weir derivation. Crit Care Resus 2012; 14: 202–10
transpulmonarythermodilution-derived hemodynamic parameters in
critically ill patients: A pro-spective trial. J Crit Care 2011; 26: 402–10 106. Marik PE, Sibbald WJ. Effect of stored-blood transfusion on oxygen
delivery in patients with sepsis. JAMA 1993; 269: 3024–9
88. NQF #0500. Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: management Bundle,
January 5 2015, update. www.qualityforum.org. 2015. National Quality 107. Marik PE, Bellomo R. Lactate clearance as a target of therapy in sepsis:
Forum. (Acessed 15 May 2015) a flawed paradigm. OA Critical Care 2013; 1: 3
89. Akobeng AK. Understanding diagnostic tests 3: Receiver op- 108. Ronco JJ, Fenwick JC, Tweeddale MG, et al. Identification of the
erating characteristic curves. ActaPaediatrica 2007; 96: 644–7 critical oxygen delivery for anaerobic metabolism in critically ill septic
90. Fischer JE, Bachmann LM, Jaeschke R. A readers’ guide to the and nonseptic humans. JAMA 1993; 270: 1724–30
interpretation of diagnostic test properties: clinical example of sepsis.
Intensive Care Med 2003; 29: 1043–51 109. Brandt S, Regueira T, Bracht H, et al. Effect of fluid resuscita-tion on
91. Marik PE, Baram M, Vahid B. Does the central venous pres-sure mortality and organ function in experimental sepsis models. Crit Care
predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and 2009; 13: R186
the tale of seven mares. Chest 2008; 134: 172–8 110. Rehberg S, Yamamoto Y, Sousse L, et al. Selective V(1a) agon-ism
attenuates vascular dysfunction and fluid accumula-tion in ovine severe
92. Song Y, Kwak YL, Song JW, Kim YJ, Shim JK. Respirophasic carotid sepsis. Am J Physiol Heart CircPhysiol 2012; 303: H1245–54
artery peak velocity variation as a predictor of fluid
348 | Marik and Bellomo
111. Rosenberg AL, Dechert RE, Park PK, Bartlett RH. Review of a large 129. MohdYunos N, Bellomo R, Hegarty C, Stoty D, Ho L, Bailey M.
clinical series: association of cumulative fluid balance on outcome in Association between a chloride-liberal vs chloride-restrict-ive
acute lung injury: a retrospective review of the ARDSnet tidal volume intravenous fluid administration strategy and kidney injury in critically
study cohort. J Intensive Care Med 2009; 24: 35–46 ill adults. JAMA 2012; 308: 1566–72
130. Raghunathan K, Shaw A, Nathanson B, et al. Association between the
112. Vincent JL, Sakr Y, Sprung CL, et al. Sepsis in European inten-sive choice of IV crystalloid and in-hospital mortal-ity among critically ill
care units: results of the SOAP study. Crit Care Med 2006; 34: 344–53 adults with sepsis. Crit Care Med 2014; 42: 1585–91
113. Alsous F, Khamiees M, DeGirolamo A, moateng-Adjepong Y, 131. Perner A, Haase N, Guttormsen AB, et al. Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4
Manthous CA. Negative fluid balance predicts survival in patients with versus Ringers Acetate in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 124–
septic shock: a retrospective pilot study. Chest 2000; 117: 1749–54 34
132. Haase N, Perner A, Hennings LI, et al. Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38–
114. Murphy CV, Schramm GE, Doherty JA, et al. The importance of fluid 0.45 versus crystalloid or albumin in patients with sepsis: systematic
management in acute lung injury secondary to sep-tic shock. Chest review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Br Med J 2013;
2009; 136: 102–9 346: f839
115. Chung FT, Lin SM, Lin SY, Lin HC. Impact of extravascular lung 133. Kirkpatrick AW, Roberts DJ, De WJ, et al. Intra-abdominal
water index on outcomes of severe sepsis patients in a medical hypertension and the abdominal compartment syndrome: updated
intensive care unit. Respiratory Medicine 2008; 102: 956–61 consensus definitions and clinical practice guidelines from the World
Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome. Intensive Care
116. Payen D, de Pont AC, Sakr Y, Spies C, Reinhart K, Vincent JL. A Med 2013; 39: 1190–206
positive fluid balance is associated with a worse outcome in patients
with acute renal failure. Crit Care 2008; 12: R74 134. Malbrain ML, Marik PE, Witters I, et al. De-resuscitation in the
117. Bouchard J, Soroko SB, Chertow GM, et al. Fluid accumula-tion, critically ill: What, why, when and how? Results of a meta-analysis
survival and recovery of kidney function in critically ill patients with and systematic review on the impact of fluid overload on morbidity and
acute kidney injury. Kidney Int 2009; 76: 422–7 mortality.AnesthesiologyIntensive Therapy 2014; 46: 361–80
118. Micek SC, McEnvoy C, McKenzie M, Hampton N, Doherty JA, Kollef 135. Asfar P, Meziani F, Hamel JF, et al. High versus low blood-pressure
MH. Fluid balance and cardiac function in septic shock as predictors of target in patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1583–93
hospital mortality. Crit Care 2013; 17: R246
136. Monnet X, Jabot J, Maizel J, Richard C, Teboul JL. Norepineph-rine
119. Boyd JH, Forbes J, Nakada T, Walley KR, Russell JA. Fluid increases cardiac preload and reduces preload depend-ency assessed by
resuscitation in septic shock: a positive fluid balance and elevated passive leg raising in septic shock patients. Crit Care Med 2011; 39:
central venous pressure increase mortality. Crit Care Med 2011; 39: 689–94
259–65 137. Datta P, Magder S. Hemodynamic response to norepineph-rine with
120. Acheampong A, Vincent JL. A positive fluid balance is an independent and without inhibition of nitric oxide synthase in porcine endotoxemia.
prognostic factor in patients with sepsis. Crit Care 2015; 19: 251 Am J RespirCrit Care Med 1999; 160: 1987–93
121. Maitland K, Kiguli S, Opoka RO, et al. Mortality after fluid bolus in 138. Persichini R, Silva S, Teboul JL, et al. Effects of norepineph-rine on
African children with severe infection. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 2483– mean systemic pressure and venous return in human septic shock. Crit
95 Care Med 2012; 40: 3146–53
122. Jansen TC, van BJ, Schoonderbeek FJ, et al. Early lactate-guided 139. Kozieras J, Thuemer O, Sakka SG. Influence of an acute in-crease in
therapy in intensive care unit patients: a multicen-ter, open-label, systemic vascular resistance on transpulmonarythermodilution-derived
randomized controlled trial. Am J RespirCrit Care Med 2010; 182: parameters in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med 2007; 33:
752–61 1619–23
123. Maitland K, George EC, Evans JA, et al. Exploring mechan-isms of 140. Hamzaoui O, Georger JF, Monnet X, et al. Early administra-tion of
excess mortality with early fluid resuscitation: insights from the norepinephrine increases cardiac preload and cardiac output in septic
FEAST trial. BMC Medicine 2013; 11: 68 patients with life-threatening hypo-tension. Crit Care 2010; 14: R142
124. Marik PE. Early management of severe sepsis: Current con-
cepts and controversies. Chest 2014; 145: 1407–18 141. Abid O, Akca S, Haji-Michael P, Vincent JL. Strong vasopres-sor
125. Scheingraber S, Rehm M, Sehmisch C, Finsterer U. Rapid saline support may be futile in the intensive care unit patient with multiple
infusion produces hyperchloremic acidosis in patients undergoing organ failure. Crit Care Med 2000; 28: 947–9
gynecologic surgery. Anesthesiol 1999; 90: 1265–70 142. Di Giantomasso D, May CN, Bellomo R. Norepinephrine and vital
126. Kellum JA, Bellomo R, Kramer DJ, Pinsky MR. Etiology of metabolic organ blood flow during experimental hyperdynamic sepsis. Intensive
acidosis during saline resuscitation in endotoxe-mia. Shock 1998; 9: Care Med 2003; 29: 1774–81
364–8 143. Di Giantomasso D, Morimatsu H, May CN, Bellomo R. Intrar-enal
127. Waters JH, Gottlieb A, Schoenwald P, Popovich MJ, Sprung J, Nelson blood flow distribution in hyperdynamic septic shock: Effect of
DR. Normal saline versus lactated Ringer’s solution for intraoperative norepinephrine. Crit Care Med 2003; 31: 2509–13
fluid management in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm 144. Jhanji S, Stirling S, Patel N, Hinds CJ, Pearse RM. The effect of
repair: an outcome study. AnesthAnalg 2001; 93: 817–22 increasing doses of norepinephrine on tissue oxygenation and
microvascularflow in patients with septic shock. Crit Care Med 2009;
128. Reid F, Lobo DN, Williams RN, Rowlands BJ, Allison SP. (Ab) 37: 1961–6
normal saline and physiological Hartmann’s solution: a ran-domized 145. Hayes MA, Yau EH, Hinds CJ, Watson JD. Symmetrical peripheral
double-blind crossover study. Clinical Science 2003; 104: 17–24 gangrene: association with noradrenaline ad-ministration. Intensive
Care Med 1992; 18: 433–6
Fluid and sepsis | 349
146. Dunser MW, Mayr AJ, Tur A, et al. Ischemic skin lesions as a and phenylephrine on septic myocardial dysfunction. Anesthesiol
complication of continuous vasopressin infusion in catecholamine- 2012; 116: 1083–91
resistant vasodilatory shock: incidence and risk factors. Crit Care Med 151. Minneci PC, Deans KJ, Banks SM, et al. Differing effects of
2003; 31: 1394–8 epinephrine, norepinephrine, and vasopressin on survival in a canine
147. Anantasit N, Boyd JH, Walley KR, Russell JA. Serious adverse events model of septic shock. Am J Physiol Heart CircPhysiol 2004; 287:
associated with vasopressin and norepin-ephrine infusion in septic H2545–54
shock. Crit Care Med 2014; 42: 1812–20 152. Vasu TS, Cavallazzi R, Hirani A, Kaplan G, Marik PE. Norepin-
ephrine or dopamine for septic shock: A systematic review of
148. Hotchkiss RS, Levy JH, Levi M. Sepsis-induced disseminated randomized clinical trials. J Intensive Care Med 2011; 27: 172–8
intravascular coagulation, symmetrical peripheral gan-grene, and
amputations. Crit Care Med 2013; 41: e290–1 153. De Baker D, Aldecoa C, Njimi H, Vincent JL. Dopamine versus
149. Cardenas-Garcia J, Schaub KF, Belchikov YG, Narasimhan M, Koenig norepinephrine in the treatment of septic shock: A meta-analysis. Crit
SJ, Mayo PH. Safety of peripheral intravenous admin-istration of Care Med 2011; 40: 725–30
vasoactive medication. J Hosp Med 2015; 10: 581–5 154. Fawzy A, Evans SR, Walkey AJ. Practice patterns and out-comes
150. Ducrocq N, Kimmoun A, Furmaniuk A, et al. Comparison of associated with choice of initial vasopressor therapy for septic shock.
equipressor doses of norepinephrine, epinephrine, Crit Care Med 2015; 43: 2141–6