Volumetric hemodynamic parameters to guide fluid removal on hemodialysis in the intensive care unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimation of removable excess body fluid is difficult in critically ill patients with renal failure. Volumetric hemodynamic parameters are increasingly being used to guide fluid therapy in the intensive care unit, but their suitability to monitor fluid removal with hemodialysis in critically ill patients is not known. Changes in the extravascular lung water index (EVLWI) and intrathoracic blood volume index (ITBVI) measured with transpulmonary thermodilution immediately before and after hemodialysis were analyzed from 39 hemodialysis sessions of 9 patients consecutively treated in the medical intensive care unit of a German University Hospital. Additional hemodynamic, ventilation, and oxygenation-related parameters were recorded at the same time. Online relative blood volume (RBV) monitoring was performed in 29 sessions. Comparisons of pre and postdialysis values showed a significant reduction of the EVLWI with fluid removal (p=0.009), with only a slight nonsignificant decrease in the ITBVI. The cardiac index (CI) also decreased significantly (p=0.010), whereas blood pressure remained stable. Oxygenation improved significantly (p=0.005), and the hematocrit increased significantly with dialysis (p=0.039). There was no correlation between hematocrit changes and RBV measurements. Significant correlations existed between ITBVI and CI changes (p<0.001), but not to EVLWI reduction. The removal of excess body fluid on hemodialysis is reflected by the EVLWI reduction, whereas the preservation of cardiac preload is shown by ITBVI stability. Volumetric hemodynamic parameters could be useful to guide fluid removal with hemodialysis in the intensive care unit.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".