首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Annals of Intensive Care >Prediction of fluid responsiveness: an update
【2h】

Prediction of fluid responsiveness: an update

机译:预测液体反应性:更新

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

In patients with acute circulatory failure, the decision to give fluids or not should not be taken lightly. The risk of overzealous fluid administration has been clearly established. Moreover, volume expansion does not always increase cardiac output as one expects. Thus, after the very initial phase and/or if fluid losses are not obvious, predicting fluid responsiveness should be the first step of fluid strategy. For this purpose, the central venous pressure as well as other “static” markers of preload has been used for decades, but they are not reliable. Robust evidence suggests that this traditional use should be abandoned. Over the last 15 years, a number of dynamic tests have been developed. These tests are based on the principle of inducing short-term changes in cardiac preload, using heart–lung interactions, the passive leg raise or by the infusion of small volumes of fluid, and to observe the resulting effect on cardiac output. Pulse pressure and stroke volume variations were first developed, but they are reliable only under strict conditions. The variations in vena caval diameters share many limitations of pulse pressure variations. The passive leg-raising test is now supported by solid evidence and is more frequently used. More recently, the end-expiratory occlusion test has been described, which is easily performed in ventilated patients. Unlike the traditional fluid challenge, these dynamic tests do not lead to fluid overload. The dynamic tests are complementary, and clinicians should choose between them based on the status of the patient and the cardiac output monitoring technique. Several methods and tests are currently available to identify preload responsiveness. All have some limitations, but they are frequently complementary. Along with elements indicating the risk of fluid administration, they should help clinicians to take the decision to administer fluids or not in a reasoned way.
机译:对于急性循环衰竭的患者,不要轻易决定是否输液。已经明确确定了过度服用液体的风险。而且,体积膨胀并不总是像人们期望的那样增加心输出量。因此,在最初阶段之后和/或如果流体损失不明显,预测流体响应性应该是流体策略的第一步。为此,中心静脉压以及其他“静态”预紧标记已使用了数十年,但并不可靠。有力的证据表明应放弃这种传统用途。在过去的15年中,已经开发了许多动态测试。这些测试基于以下原理:使用心肺交互作用,被动抬腿或通过输注少量液体来引起心脏预负荷的短期变化,并观察其对心输出量的影响。脉冲压力和冲程体积的变化首先被发现,但是它们只有在严格的条件下才是可靠的。腔静脉直径的变化具有许多脉搏压力变化的局限性。被动抬腿测试现在得到有力的证据支持,并且使用频率更高。最近,已经描述了呼气末阻塞试验,该试验在通气患者中容易进行。与传统的流体挑战不同,这些动态测试不会导致流体过载。动态测试是互补的,临床医生应根据患者的状况和心输出量监测技术在动态测试之间进行选择。当前有几种方法和测试可用于识别预紧响应。所有这些都有一些局限性,但它们通常是互补的。除了指示输液危险的要素外,它们还应帮助临床医生以合理的方式决定是否输液。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号