| 1. |
- Gavelli, Francesco, et al.
(författare)
-
Extravascular lung water levels are associated with mortality : a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Critical Care. - : BMC. - 1364-8535 .- 1466-609X. ; 26:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The prognostic value of extravascular lung water (EVLW) measured by transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) in critically ill patients is debated. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies assessing the effects of TPTD-estimated EVLW on mortality in critically ill patients. Methods Cohort studies published in English from Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1960 to 1 June 2021 were systematically searched. From eligible studies, the values of the odds ratio (OR) of EVLW as a risk factor for mortality, and the value of EVLW in survivors and non-survivors were extracted. Pooled OR were calculated from available studies. Mean differences and standard deviation of the EVLW between survivors and non-survivors were calculated. A random effects model was computed on the weighted mean differences across the two groups to estimate the pooled size effect. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the possible sources of heterogeneity. Results Of the 18 studies included (1296 patients), OR could be extracted from 11 studies including 905 patients (464 survivors vs. 441 non-survivors), and 17 studies reported EVLW values of survivors and non-survivors, including 1246 patients (680 survivors vs. 566 non-survivors). The pooled OR of EVLW for mortality from eleven studies was 1.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) [1.22; 2.34], p < 0.0015). EVLW was significantly lower in survivors than non-survivors, with a mean difference of -4.97 mL/kg (95% CI [-6.54; -3.41], p < 0.001). The results regarding OR and mean differences were consistent in subgroup analyses. Conclusions The value of EVLW measured by TPTD is associated with mortality in critically ill patients and is significantly higher in non-survivors than in survivors. This finding may also be interpreted as an indirect confirmation of the reliability of TPTD for estimating EVLW at the bedside. Nevertheless, our results should be considered cautiously due to the high risk of bias of many studies included in the meta-analysis and the low rating of certainty of evidence. Trial registration the study protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO: CRD42019126985.
|
|
| 2. |
- Messina, Antonio, et al.
(författare)
-
Consistency of data reporting in fluid responsiveness studies in the critically ill setting: the CODEFIRE consensus from the Cardiovascular Dynamic section of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Intensive Care Medicine. - : SPRINGER. - 0342-4642 .- 1432-1238.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PurposeTo provide consensus recommendations regarding hemodynamic data reporting in studies investigating fluid responsiveness and fluid challenge (FC) use in the intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsThe Executive Committee of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) commissioned and supervised the project. A panel of 18 international experts and a methodologist identified main domains and items from a systematic literature, plus 2 ancillary domains. A three-step Delphi process based on an iterative approach was used to obtain the final consensus. In the Delphi 1 and 2, the items were selected with strong (>= 80% of votes) or week agreement (70-80% of votes), while the Delphi 3 generated recommended (>= 90% of votes) or suggested (80-90% of votes) items (RI and SI, respectively).ResultsWe identified 5 main domains initially including 117 items and the consensus finally resulted in 52 recommendations or suggestions: 18 RIs and 2 SIs statements were obtained for the domain "ICU admission", 11 RIs and 1 SI for the domain "mechanical ventilation", 5 RIs for the domain "reason for giving a FC", 8 RIs for the domain pre- and post-FC "hemodynamic data", and 7 RIs for the domain "pre-FC infused drugs". We had no consensus on the use of echocardiography, strong agreement regarding the volume (4 ml/kg) and the reference variable (cardiac output), while weak on administration rate (within 10 min) of FC in this setting.ConclusionThis consensus found 5 main domains and provided 52 recommendations for data reporting in studies investigating fluid responsiveness in ICU patients.
|
|
