Coexistence of a fluid responsive state and venous congestion signals in critically ill patients: a multicenter observational proof-of-concept study
Felipe Muñoz, Pablo Born, Mario Bruna, Rodrigo Ulloa, Cecilia González, Valerie Philp, Roberto Mondaca, Juan Pablo Blanco, Emilio Daniel Valenzuela, Jaime Retamal, Francisco Miralles, Pedro David Wendel‐Garcia, Gustavo A. Ospina‐Tascón, Ricardo Castro, Philippe Rola, Jan Bakker, Glenn Hernández, Eduardo Kattan
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current recommendations support guiding fluid resuscitation through the assessment of fluid responsiveness. Recently, the concept of fluid tolerance and the prevention of venous congestion (VC) have emerged as relevant aspects to be considered to avoid potentially deleterious side effects of fluid resuscitation. However, there is paucity of data on the relationship of fluid responsiveness and VC. This study aims to compare the prevalence of venous congestion in fluid responsive and fluid unresponsive critically ill patients after intensive care (ICU) admission. METHODS: Multicenter, prospective cross-sectional observational study conducted in three medical-surgical ICUs in Chile. Consecutive mechanically ventilated patients that required vasopressors and admitted < 24 h to ICU were included between November 2022 and June 2023. Patients were assessed simultaneously for fluid responsiveness and VC at a single timepoint. Fluid responsiveness status, VC signals such as central venous pressure, estimation of left ventricular filling pressures, lung, and abdominal ultrasound congestion indexes and relevant clinical data were collected. RESULTS: Ninety patients were included. Median age was 63 [45-71] years old, and median SOFA score was 9 [7-11]. Thirty-eight percent of the patients were fluid responsive (FR+), while 62% were fluid unresponsive (FR-). The most prevalent diagnosis was sepsis (41%) followed by respiratory failure (22%). The prevalence of at least one VC signal was not significantly different between FR+ and FR- groups (53% vs. 57%, p = 0.69), as well as the proportion of patients with 2 or 3 VC signals (15% vs. 21%, p = 0.4). We found no association between fluid balance, CRT status, or diagnostic group and the presence of VC signals. CONCLUSIONS: Venous congestion signals were prevalent in both fluid responsive and unresponsive critically ill patients. The presence of venous congestion was not associated with fluid balance or diagnostic group. Further studies should assess the clinical relevance of these results and their potential impact on resuscitation and monitoring practices.