Журнал «Медицина неотложных состояний» Том 20, №6, 2024

Інфузійна терапія є важливим, а в деяких випадках — основним лікувальним заходом при більшості критичних станів. Як і будь-які лікувальні засоби, внутрішньовенні рідини мають свої показання та протипоказання до застосування, а також потребують точного дозування. Це все стає можливим лише завдяки якісному моніторингу волемічного статусу пацієнта. Оцінка гемодинаміки відіграє ключову роль у лікуванні критично хворих пацієнтів, дозволяючи провести адекватну інфузійну терапію та кардіоваскулярну підтримку для оптимізації тканинної перфузії та оксигенації. Традиційні методи оцінки відповіді на введення рідини є переважно статичними, як-от центральний венозний тиск та тиск закриття легеневої артерії. Вони мають значні обмеження щодо прогностичної точності в динамічних клінічних умовах. Відповідно, останнім часом зростає інтерес до динамічних методів оцінки, які аналізують кардіоваскулярну відповідь на конкретні зміни переднавантаження. Огляд літератури на підставі джерел з баз PubMed та MEDLINE має на меті продемонструвати різні динамічні методи оцінки гемодинаміки, їх переваги та обмеження в реальних клінічних умовах.

Fluid therapy is a critical, and often primary treatment modality in the management of various critical conditions. Like any therapeutic intervention, intravenous fluids require precise indications, contraindications, and dosing, all determined through the assessment of a patient’s volume status. Hemodynamic assessment plays a pivotal role in the treatment of critically ill patients, enabling clinicians to administer appropriate fluid therapy and cardiovascular support to optimize tissue perfusion and oxygenation. Traditional methods of assessing fluid responsiveness, which are predominantly static such as central venous pressure and pulmonary artery occlusion pressure, often fall short in their predictive accuracy under dynamic clinical conditions. Consequently, there is a growing interest in dynamic methods of fluid responsiveness assessment, which analyze cardiovascular response to specific preload changes. This literature review aims to explore various dynamic methods of hemodynamic assessment, discussing their advantages and limitations based on sources from databases like PubMed and MEDLINE.

інфузійна терапія; гемодинамічний моніторинг; чутливість до рідини; динамічні методи

fluid therapy; hemodynamic monitoring; fluid responsiveness; dynamic methods

1. Monnet X, Marik PE, Teboul JL. Prediction of fluid responsiveness: an update. Ann Intensive Care. 2016 Dec;6(1):111. doi: 10.1186/s13613-016-0216-7. Epub 2016 Nov 17. PMID: 27858374; PMCID: PMC5114218.
2. Malbrain ML, Marik PE, Witters I, Cordemans C, Kirkpatrick AW, Roberts DJ, Van Regenmortel N. Fluid overload, de-resuscitation, and outcomes in critically ill or injured patients: a systematic review with suggestions for clinical practice. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2014 Nov-Dec;46(5):361-80. doi: 10.5603/AIT.2014.0060. PMID: 25432556.
3. Perez Nieto OR, Wong A, Lopez Fermin J, Zamarron Lopez EI, Meade Aguilar JA, Deloya Tomas E, et al. Aiming for zero fluid accumulation: First, do no harm. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2021;53(2):162-178. doi: 10.5114/ait.2021.105252. PMID: 34006046; PMCID: PMC10158434.
4. Hansen B. Fluid Overload. Front Vet Sci. 2021 Jun 29;8:668688. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.668688. PMID: 34268347; PMCID: PMC8275824.
5. Jalil BA, Cavallazzi R. Predicting fluid responsiveness: A review of literature and a guide for the clinician. Am J Emerg Med. 2018 Nov;36(11):2093-2102. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2018.08.037. Epub 2018 Aug 14. PMID: 30122506.
6. Hall, John E. Guyton and Hall Textbook of Medical Physiology. 14th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2021.
7. Holubarsch C, Ruf T, Goldstein DJ, Ashton RC, Nickl W, Pieske B, et al. Existence of the Frank-Starling mechanism in the failing human heart. Investigations on the organ, tissue, and sarcomere levels. Circulation. 1996 Aug 15;94(4):683-9. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.94.4.683. PMID: 8772688.
8. Vahl CF, Timek T, Bonz A, Kochsiek N, Fuchs H, Schäffer L, et al. Myocardial length-force relationship in end stage dilated cardiomyopathy and normal human myocardium: analysis of intact and skinned left ventricular trabeculae obtained during 11 heart transplantations. Basic Res Cardiol. 1997 Aug;92(4):261-70. doi: 10.1007/BF00788521. PMID: 9342433.
9. Hamahata N, Pinsky MR. Heart-Lung Interactions. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2023 Oct;44(5):650-660. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-1770062. Epub 2023 Aug 4. PMID: 37541314.
10. Malbrain MLNG, Langer T, Annane D, Gattinoni L, Elbers P, Hahn RG, et al. Intravenous fluid therapy in the perioperative and critical care setting: Executive summary of the International Fluid Academy (IFA). Ann Intensive Care. 2020 May 24;10(1):64. doi: 10.1186/s13613-020-00679-3. PMID: 32449147; PMCID: PMC7245999.
11. Oh AR, Lee JH. Predictors of fluid responsiveness in the operating room: a narrative review. Anesth Pain Med (Seoul). 2023 Jul;18(3):233-243. doi: 10.17085/apm.23072. Epub 2023 Jul 18. PMID: 37468195; PMCID: PMC10410540.
12. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, Antonelli M, Coopersmith CM, French C, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021 Nov;47(11):1181-1247. doi: 10.1007/s00134-021-06506-y. Epub 2021 Oct 2. PMID: 34599691; PMCID: PMC8486643.
13. Cecconi M, De Backer D, Antonelli M, Beale R, Bakker J, Hofer C, et al. Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2014 Dec;40(12):1795-815. doi: 10.1007/s00134-014-3525-z. Epub 2014 Nov 13. PMID: 25392034; PMCID: PMC4239778.
14. Endo Y, Tamura J, Ishizuka T, Itami T, Hanazono K, Miyoshi K, et al. Stroke volume variation (SVV) and pulse pressure variation (PPV) as indicators of fluid responsiveness in sevoflurane anesthetized mechanically ventilated euvolemic dogs. J Vet Med Sci. 2017 Aug 18;79(8):1437-1445. doi: 10.1292/jvms.16-0287. Epub 2017 Jul 10. PMID: 28690287; PMCID: PMC5573834.
15. Hofer CK, Cannesson M. Monitoring fluid responsiveness. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan. 2011 Jun;49(2):59-65. doi: 10.1016/j.aat.2011.05.001. Epub 2011 Jun 24. PMID: 21729812.
16. Rathore A, Singh S, Lamsal R, Taank P, Paul D. Validity of Pulse Pressure Variation (PPV) Compared with Stroke Volume Variation (SVV) in Predicting Fluid Responsiveness. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2017 Aug;45(4):210-217. doi: 10.5152/TJAR.2017.04568. Epub 2017 Aug 1. PMID: 28868168; PMCID: PMC5579214.
17. Drvar Z, Pavlek M, Drvar V, Tomasević B, Baronica R, Perić M. Varijacija udarnog volumena i tlaka pulsa dobri su pokazatelji hemodinamskog odgovora na nadoknadu volumena u sepsi [Stroke volume and pulse pressure variation are good predictors of fluid responsiveness in sepsis patients]. Acta Med Croatica. 2013 Dec;67(5):407-14. Croatian. PMID: 24979881.
18. Piccioni F, Bernasconi F, Tramontano GTA, Langer M. A systematic review of pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation to predict fluid responsiveness during cardiac and thoracic surgery. J Clin Monit Comput. 2017 Aug;31(4):677-684. doi: 10.1007/s10877-016-9898-5. Epub 2016 Jun 15. PMID: 27306799.
19. Chew MS, Åneman A. Haemodynamic monitoring using arterial waveform analysis. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2013 Jun;19(3):234-41. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e32836091ae. PMID: 23549299.
20. Bennett VA, Aya HD, Cecconi M. Evaluation of cardiac function using heart-lung interactions. Ann Transl Med. 2018 Sep;6(18):356. doi: 10.21037/atm.2018.08.10. PMID: 30370283; PMCID: PMC6186548.
21. Jozwiak M, Monnet X, Teboul JL. Prediction of fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients. Ann Transl Med. 2018 Sep;6(18):352. doi: 10.21037/atm.2018.05.03. PMID: 30370279; PMCID: PMC6186547.
22. Yang X, Du B. Does pulse pressure variation predict fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2014 Nov 27;18(6):650. doi: 10.1186/s13054-014-0650-6. PMID: 25427970; PMCID: PMC4258282.
23. Michard F., Chemla D., Teboul JL. Meta-analysis of pulse pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV) studies: a few rotten apples can spoil the whole barrel. Crit Care. 2023;27:482. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04765-3.
24. Cannesson M, Le Manach Y, Hofer CK, Goarin JP, Lehot JJ, Vallet B, Tavernier B. Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of pulse pressure variations for the prediction of fluid responsiveness: a "gray zone" approach. Anesthesiology. 2011 Aug;115(2):231-41. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318225b80a. PMID: 21705869.
25. Myatra SN, Prabu NR, Divatia JV, Monnet X, Kulkarni AP, Teboul JL. The Changes in Pulse Pressure Variation or Stroke Volume Variation After a "Tidal Volume Challenge" Reliably Predict Fluid Responsiveness During Low Tidal Volume Ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2017 Mar;45(3):415-421. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002183. PMID: 27922879.
26. Wang X, Liu S, Gao J, Zhang Y, Huang T. Does tidal volume challenge improve the feasibility of pulse pressure variation in patients mechanically ventilated at low tidal volumes? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2023 Feb 2;27(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04336-6. PMID: 36732851; PMCID: PMC9893685.
27. Horejsek J, Balík M, Kunstýř J, Michálek P, Brožek T, Kopecký P, et al. Prediction of Fluid Responsiveness Using Combined End-Expiratory and End-Inspiratory Occlusion Tests in Cardiac Surgical Patients. J Clin Med. 2023 Mar 29;12(7):2569. doi: 10.3390/jcm12072569. PMID: 37048651; PMCID: PMC10094769.
28. Feissel M, Michard F, Faller JP, Teboul JL. The respiratory variation in inferior vena cava diameter as a guide to fluid therapy. Intensive Care Med. 2004 Sep;30(9):1834-7. doi: 10.1007/s00134-004-2233-5. Epub 2004 Mar 25. PMID: 15045170.
29. Monnet X, Teboul JL. Prediction of fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients. Ann Transl Med. 2020 Jun;8(12):790. doi: 10.21037/atm-2020-hdm-18. PMID: 32647715; PMCID: PMC7333112.
30. Pickett JD, Bridges E, Kritek PA, Whitney JD. Passive Leg-Raising and Prediction of Fluid Responsiveness: Systematic Review. Crit Care Nurse. 2017 Apr;37(2):32-47. doi: 10.4037/ccn2017205. PMID: 28365648.
31. Monnet X, Marik P, Teboul JL. Passive leg raising for predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2016 Dec;42(12):1935-1947. doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-4134-1. Epub 2016 Jan 29. PMID: 26825952.
32. Vincent JL. "Let’ s give some fluid and see what happens" versus the "mini-fluid challenge". Anesthesiology. 2011 Sep;115(3):455-6. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318229a521. PMID: 21792055.
33. Joosten A, Delaporte A, Van der Linden P, Rinehart J, Hipszer B. Immediate haemodynamic impact response to a mini-fluid challenge is independent of fluid type: A post-hoc analysis of a randomised double blinded controlled trial. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2019 Dec;38(6):669-670. doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2018.10.017. Epub 2018 Dec 18. PMID: 30576857.
34. Marik PE, Cavallazzi R. Does the central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? An updated meta-analysis and a plea for some common sense. Crit Care Med. 2013 Jul;41(7):1774-81. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31828a25fd. PMID: 23774337.
35. Cecconi M, Aya HD. Central venous pressure cannot predict fluid-responsiveness. Evid Based Med. 2014 Apr;19(2):63. doi: 10.1136/eb-2013-101496. Epub 2013 Oct 16. PMID: 24132054.
36. Melo RH, Santos MHCD, Ramos FJDS. Beyond fluid responsiveness: the concept of fluid tolerance and its potential implication in hemodynamic management. Crit Care Sci. 2023 Apr-Jun;35(2):226-229. doi: 10.5935/2965-2774.20230012-en. PMID: 37712813; PMCID: PMC10406410.