Fluid overload, de-resuscitation, and outcomes in critically ill or injured patients: a systematic review with suggestions for clinical practice

2014 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. 361-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manu L.N.G. Malbrain ◽  
Paul E. Marik ◽  
Ine Witters ◽  
Colin Cordemans ◽  
Andrew W. Kirkpatrick ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marije Wijnberge ◽  
Daniko P. Sindhunata ◽  
Michael R. Pinsky ◽  
Alexander P. Vlaar ◽  
Else Ouweneel ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Emily Schapka ◽  
Jerica Gee ◽  
John W. Cyrus ◽  
Gregory Goldstein ◽  
Kara Greenfield ◽  
...  

AbstractFluid overload is a common complication of critical illness, associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Pulmonary fluid status is difficult to evaluate clinically and many clinicians utilize chest X-ray (CXR) to identify fluid overload. Adult data have shown lung ultrasound (LUS) to be a more sensitive modality. Our objective was to determine the performance of LUS for detecting fluid overload, with comparison to CXR, in critically ill children. We conducted a systematic review using multiple electronic databases and included studies from inception to November 15, 2020. The sensitivity and specificity of each test were evaluated. Out of 1,209 studies screened, 4 met eligibility criteria. Overall, CXR is reported to have low sensitivity (44–58%) and moderate specificity (52–94%) to detect fluid overload, while LUS is reported to have high sensitivity (90–100%) and specificity (94–100%). Overall, the quality of evidence was moderate, and the gold standard was different in each study. Our systematic review suggests LUS is more sensitive and specific than CXR to identify pulmonary fluid overload in critically ill children. Considering the clinical burden of fluid overload and the relative ease of obtaining LUS, further evaluation of LUS to diagnose volume overload is warranted.


2014 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 49 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Rolls ◽  
K. Armstrong ◽  
L. Keating ◽  
D. Wrightson ◽  
S. Walker ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. bjgp18X697085
Author(s):  
Trudy Bekkering ◽  
Bert Aertgeerts ◽  
Ton Kuijpers ◽  
Mieke Vermandere ◽  
Jako Burgers ◽  
...  

BackgroundThe WikiRecs evidence summaries and recommendations for clinical practice are developed using trustworthy methods. The process is triggered by studies that may potentially change practice, aiming at implementing new evidence into practice fast.AimTo share our first experiences developing WikiRecs for primary care and to reflect on the possibilities and pitfalls of this method.MethodIn March 2017, we started developing WikiRecs for primary health care to speed up the process of making potentially practice-changing evidence in clinical practice. Based on a well-structured question a systematic review team summarises the evidence using the GRADE approach. Subsequently, an international panel of primary care physicians, methodological experts and patients formulates recommendations for clinical practice. The patient representatives are involved as full guideline panel members. The final recommendations and supporting evidence are disseminated using various platforms, including MAGICapp and scientific journals.ResultsWe are developing WikiRecs on two topics: alpha-blockers for urinary stones and supervised exercise therapy for intermittent claudication. We did not face major problems but will reflect on issues we had to solve so far. We anticipate having the first WikiRecs for primary care available at the end of 2017.ConclusionThe WikiRecs process is a promising method — that is still evolving — to rapidly synthesise and bring new evidence into primary care practice, while adhering to high quality standards.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document