Predicting Fluid Responsiveness in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Administration of fluid to improve cardiac output is the mainstay of hemodynamic resuscitation. Not all patients respond to fluid therapy, and excessive fluid administration is harmful. Predicting fluid responsiveness can be challenging, particularly in children. Numerous hemodynamic variables have been proposed as predictors of fluid responsiveness. Dynamic variables based on the heart-lung interaction appear to be excellent predictors of fluid responsiveness in adults, but there is no consensus on their usefulness in children. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the current evidence for predictors of fluid responsiveness in children. A systematic search was performed using PubMed (1947-2013) and EMBASE (1974-2013). Search terms included fluid, volume, response, respond, challenge, bolus, load, predict, and guide. Results were limited to studies involving pediatric subjects (infant, child, and adolescent). Extraction of data was performed independently by 2 authors using predefined data fields, including study quality indicators. Any variable with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve that was significantly above 0.5 was considered predictive. RESULTS: Twelve studies involving 501 fluid boluses in 438 pediatric patients (age range 1 day to 17.8 years) were included. Twenty-four variables were investigated. The only variable shown in multiple studies to be predictive was respiratory variation in aortic blood flow peak velocity (5 studies). Stroke volume index, stroke distance variation, and change in cardiac index (and stroke volume) induced by passive leg raising were found to be predictive in single studies only. Static variables based on heart rate, systolic arterial blood pressure, preload (central venous pressure, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure), thermodilution (global end diastolic volume index), ultrasound dilution (active circulation volume, central blood volume, total end diastolic volume, total ejection fraction), echocardiography (left ventricular end diastolic area), and Doppler (stroke volume index, corrected flow time) did not predict fluid responsiveness in children. Dynamic variables based on arterial blood pressure (systolic pressure variation, pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation, difference between maximal or minimal systolic arterial blood pressure and systolic pressure at end-expiratory pause) and plethysmography (pulse oximeter plethysmograph amplitude variation) were also not predictive. There were contradicting results for plethymograph variation index and inferior vena cava diameter variation. CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory variation in aortic blood flow peak velocity was the only variable shown to predict fluid responsiveness in children. Static variables did not predict fluid responsiveness in children, which was consistent with evidence in adults. Dynamic variables based on arterial blood pressure did not predict fluid responsiveness in children, but the evidence for dynamic variables based on plethysmography was inconclusive.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".