MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087501074 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000004621

Variability in the Physiologic Response to Fluid Bolus in Pediatric Patients Following Cardiac Surgery

2020· article· en· W3087501074 on OpenAlexaff
Suchitra Ranjit, Rajeswari Natraj, Niranjan Kissoon, Ravi R. Thiagarajan, Balakrishnan Ramakrishnan, Manuel Ignacio Monge García

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsChild and Family Research InstituteBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMean arterial pressureCardiac indexInterquartile rangeCardiac outputCentral venous pressureAnesthesiaBlood pressureCardiologyCardiac surgeryMean circulatory filling pressureBolus (digestion)HemodynamicsInternal medicineHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Fluid boluses aiming to improve the cardiac output and oxygen delivery are commonly administered in children with shock. An increased mean arterial pressure in addition to resolution of tachycardia and improved peripheral perfusion are often monitored as clinical surrogates for improvement in cardiac output. The objective of our study is to describe changes in cardiac index, mean arterial pressure, and their relationship to other indices of cardiovascular performance. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study is to describe changes in cardiac index, mean arterial pressure, and their relationship to other indices of cardiovascular performance. DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: We prospectively analyzed hemodynamic data from children in the cardiac ICU who received fluid bolus (10mL/kg of Ringers-Lactate over 30 min) for management of shock and/or hypoperfusion within 12h of cardiac surgery. Cardiac index responders and mean arterial pressure-responders were defined as CI ≥10% and mean arterial pressure ≥10%, respectively. We evaluated the gradient for venous-return (mean systemic filling pressure-central venous pressure), arterial load properties (systemic vascular resistance index and elastance index) and changes in vasopressor support after fluid bolus. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-seven children between 1 month and 16 years (median Risk adjustment after congenital heart surgery Model for Outcome Surveillance in Australia and New Zealand score of 3.8 (interquartile range 3.7-4.6) received fluid bolus. Cardiac index-responsiveness and mean arterial pressure-responsiveness rates were 33% and 56%, respectively. No significant correlation was observed between changes in mean arterial pressure and cardiac index (r = 0.035, p = 0.79). Although the mean systemic filling pressure - central venous pressure and the number of cardiac index-responders after fluid bolus were similar, the arterial load parameters did not change in mean arterial pressure-nonresponders. Forty-three patients (75%) had a change in Vasoactive-Inotrope Score after the fluid bolus, of whom 60% received higher level of vasoactive support. CONCLUSIONS: The mean arterial pressure response to fluid bolus in cardiac ICU patients was unpredictable with a poor relationship between cardiac index-responsiveness and mean arterial pressure-responsiveness. Because arterial hypotension is frequently a trigger for administering fluids and changes in blood pressure are commonly used for tracking changes in cardiac output, we suggest a cautious and individualized approach to repeat fluid bolus based solely on lack of mean arterial pressure response to the initial fluid, since the implications include decreased arterial tone even if the cardiac index increases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207