1 / 15

No fluids ?

No fluids ?. You have to be joking …….. Basic principles of care We may disagree about the type of fluids …. But limit them …… hypoperfused, blue edges, high lactate …. Sorry Give the fluids !. How much fluid should we give?.

ellis
Télécharger la présentation

No fluids ?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. No fluids ? You have to be joking …….. Basic principles of care We may disagree about the type of fluids …. But limit them …… hypoperfused, blue edges, high lactate …. Sorry Give the fluids !

  2. How much fluid should we give? • ‘A target PAOP of 14-18 has often been used because this pressure is commonly thought to yield an optimal CO while minimising the risk of hydrostatic pulmonary oedema.’ Crit Care Med 2000;28:3314-31 • The clinical trial - ‘…ensure adequate filling…’ • The ICU resident - ‘...I think he’s well filled now…’ It’s too vague! Yet fluid resuscitation has a very powerful effect upon outcome

  3. Numerous monitoring options • Clinical • Pulmonary artery catheter • Cardiac output, PAOP, RVEF, SvO2 • PiCCO • Surrogate volume measurements (ITBVI, GEDV), EVLW • Stroke volume variation • LiDCo • Oesophageal doppler These monitors do alter fluid & vasopressor management Mimoz O et al, Crit Care Med 1994

  4. What is the outcome of fluid resuscitation? • MAP & urine output • Warm peripheries • Cardiac output • PAOP • ITBVI/GEDVI • SvO2 • Stroke volume variation?

  5. What is the outcome of fluid resuscitation? • MAP & urine output • Warm peripheries • Cardiac output • PAOP • ITBVI/GEDVI • SvO2 • Stroke volume variation? • Tissue oxygenation • pH • Base Deficit • Lactate • Lactate/pyruvate ratio • PrCO2 • IAP

  6. Intra-abdominal haemorrhage • Animal studies • No fluids or dextran+hypertonic saline or large volume Ringers • No fluids resulted in a low flow state • No difference in blood loss • Bruscagu J Trauma 2002 52(6):1147 • Varicoda J Trauma 2003 55(1):112 • Delayed recuss, hypotensive recuss (MAP 60), aggressive recuss (MAP 75) • Delayed recuss decreased blood loss but did not restore perfusion, blood loss and fluids similar for aggressive and hypotensive grps (47± 7 and 45±10 ml/kg) and total fluids (118±73 and 171±85) • Hypotensive grp had improved tissue perfusion • Esteban-Varela 20(5):476 2003 • Rivers data - early adequate fluids

  7. So fluids ? • Diebel et al J Trauma 1992 ;33 Caldwell J Surg Res 1987, Bangard J Trauma 1995 • Decreased THBF and mesenteric perfusion • But the effects are worsened by hyovolaemia • Intra-abdominal hypertension • Decreased CI ……53% if volume deplete ….17% of replete • So sorry …. Isn’t this debate done and dusted • Masey Paediatr Res 1985 19:1244 • Kashton J Surg Res 1981 30 :249

  8. Fluids and IAP • Predictors McNelis Arch Surg 2002 ;137;133 • 24 hour fluid balance and peak airway pressures on multivariate analysis • Retrospective study • Matched for age, sex, diagnosis, procedure BUT not severity • ACS defined as IAP >25, oliguria and increased airway pressure • The IAH were sicker ! APACHE II 38 vs 16 • Higher number emergencies 72 vs 14% • Intra-op data the same • 24 hour fluid balance 16 vs 7 L • What do the authors suggest ….. • ACS reflects ongoing physiological derrangement • 8L fluid balance 0.7% risk , 15 L 70% risk, 18 L 90% risk • Clinical judgment is more important than predictive equations

  9. Malbrain - prevalance study IAH ICM 2004 • 1 day point prevalence study • 97 patients - incidence of IAP>12 50% : IAP>20 8% • Univariate analysis • SOFA • Fluid recuss > 3.5 L • > 6 u blood • BMI • Multivariate analysis • BMI p=0.013 • Fluids p=0.07 • Tf p=0.11 • Coagulopathy p=0.054

  10. the paper looks at supranormal vs normal goals … Nothing to with fluids per se ! Balogh Arch Surg 2003 138:637 ISS > 15 trauma patients well matched ISS 28±3 27 ± 2 Lactate 4.2±1 vs 3.9 ±1 Pre ITU fluids (blood and crystalloid similar) 2 treatment protocols : D02 > 600 or 500 In D02 > 600 ml.min/m2 compared to > 500 ml/min/m2 Higher C02 gap 16±2 vs 7± 1* IAH 42 vs 20% * ACS 16 vs 8%* Mortality 27 vs 11%*

  11. Supra normal goals or otherwise ? More Ringers lactate given in > 600 grp 13.2 ± 2 vs 7± 1 L* No difference in blood Tf - trend only Protocol to Hb > 10 , Ringers to achieve PAOP 15 Inotropes Pressors MAP > 65 mmHg Lactate, BD , CI - all normalised at the same rates So was this fluid needed ± is there an effect of the type of fluid Should we be measuring COP in this group of patinets

  12. IAP n=18 • IAP>15mmHg n= 12 given fluid bolus 500 ml gelofusin

  13. Correlation between IAP and markers of preload CVP r = 0.66 p = 0.003** • IAP n=18 • IAP>15mmHg n= 12 PCWP r = 0.59 p = 0.02

  14. Predictors of fluid responsivenessLinear regression Analysis (SPSS)

  15. So , a case • 55 years , 10 days post Whipples - collapse … intra-abdominal bleed • Recussitation at local hospital Tf - ongoing bleeding Hb 4, BP 90/40, CVP 22, Noradrenaline 0.2 , IAP 28 • Embolized - Hb up to 8 IAP 26 8 L +ive since presentation, still on noradr, Pa02 8 on 60% PC ventilation, lactate 8 • ITBVI 700 EVLWI 5 SVV 19 % • So fluids or not ? • We did - 12 L positive balance in next 24 hours • Lactate fell to 2 ITBVI 800 EVLWI 6 SVV 10%

More Related