|
Indian Pediatr 2018;55: 945-946 |
|
Fluids A Double-edged Sword?
|
Muralidharan Jayashree and Rajalakshmi Iyer
From the Pediatric Critical Care Unit, Advanced
Pediatrics Centre, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India.
Email: [email protected]
|
All things are poison, and nothing is without
poison, the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison"
Paracelsus (1538).
R estoration of intravascular
volume remains the cornerstone of therapy in children with septic shock.
Protocolized goal-directed approach, to achieve macro- and
micro-circulatory targets during resuscitation, engenders administration
of crystalloids and colloids, often veering on overuse. The deleterious
consequences of aggressive fluid resuscitation surface in the
post-resuscitation phase as fluid overload and organ dysfunction, which
become a nightmare for intensivists.
An increasing number of studies in adults and
children have shown an association between fluid overload and adverse
outcomes. Although majority have been retrospective, a correlation
between cumulative fluid balance, and increased length of mechanical
ventilation, pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) stay and incidence of
acute lung- and kidney-injury have been universal findings.
The current study [1] conducted in a tertiary-care
PICU in Northern India mirrors the same trend. The study included 118
mechanically ventilated children, 49% of whom had septic shock. The
median (IQR) peak fluid overload at 48 hours, in non-survivors was
significantly higher than that in survivors [9% (6.1%, 12.7%) vs.
6.6% (3.1%, 10.3%); P=0.039]. The cumulative maximum fluid
overload >15% on multivariate analysis was associated with higher PELOD
(Pediatric logistic organ dysfunction) scores, longer median duration of
mechanical ventilation and PICU stay.
Unlike morbidity outcomes, mortality outcomes have
been inconsistent. Two pediatric studies [1,2], which included
mechanically ventilated children failed to demonstrate increased
mortality with fluid overload. On the other hand, a few studies have
reported findings to the contrary. Sutawan, et al. [3], in a
case-control study including 60 cases (non-survivors) and 60 controls
(survivors), found an association between fluid overload and mortality.
Similar findings were replicated by Chen, et al. [4] in children
with severe sepsis, where both early and cumulative fluid overload
increased risk of death. A systematic review and meta-analysis by
Alobaidi, et al. [5] included 44 studies on fluid overload in
critically ill children, and revealed a 6% increase in odds for
mortality with every 1% increase in fluid overload.
So, what is the explanation for fluid therapy turning
out to be a double-edged sword? The answer lies in endotheliopathy.
Widespread inflammation, releasing cytokines and free radicals, causes
endothelial injury and disrupts tight junctions, leading to altered
vascular reactivity and leaky blood vessels. The resultant ebb phase
causes a state of intra-vascular hypovolemia (without actual fluid
loss), vasodilatation and trans-capillary leakage of plasma proteins.
This is the stage at which the child is fluid-responsive. It is,
however, pertinent to understand that about 1.5-4 hours after bolus
administration, less than 5-15% is retained within the intravascular
space. The brunt of this interstitial seepage of fluid is borne by the
lungs and kidneys [6]. Rightly so, the association between Acute
respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and fluid overload has been the
subject of many studies, and practice over time has evolved to
consciously keep fluid balance as negative as possible in patients with
ARDS [7,8]. On the other hand, fluid overload leading to acute kidney
injury is much akin to a chicken and egg situation as kidney injury by
itself might contribute to fluid overload [9]. Furthermore, proving a
causal link between fluid overload and renal damage may not be
straightforward, given the multifactorial nature of renal insults in a
child with septic shock.
Once shock has stabilized and inflammation is
controlled, there is advent of flow phase in which myocardial and renal
function improve, resulting in fluid removal through a process of
spontaneous diuresis. When this fails to happen, the excess fluid has to
be removed by diuretics, with or without albumin, or renal replacement
therapy. This process, known as de-resuscitation, is crucial to prevent
organ dysfunction secondary to fluid overload. Kwiatkowski, et al.
[10] showed that peritoneal dialysis (PD) for early fluid removal
resulted in lower mechanical ventilation days, less fluid overload and
lower inotrope use than furosemide in post-cardiac surgery children. At
present, however, there is lack of consensus on the timing, modality and
end points for de-resuscitation.
Given the above context, the findings from the
present study are relevant to critical care in resource-limited
settings. With wide disparity between demand and supply, reduction in
mechanical ventilation days and ICU stay will go a long way in
decreasing expenditure and allocating resources judiciously. Inclusion
of children with kidney injury, however, could have thrown light on this
important subset of adverse outcome of fluid overload. Further studies
are required to establish causal link between fluid overload and kidney
injury, and to determine timing and ideal mode of de-resuscitation.
Funding: None; Competing interests: None
stated.
References
1. Samaddar S, Sankar J, Kabra SK, Lodha R.
Association of fluid overload with mortality in critically-ill
mechanically ventilated children. Indian Pediatr. 2018;55:957-61.
2. Diaz F, Benfield M, Brown L, Hayes L. Fluid
overload and outcomes in critically ill children: A single center
prospective cohort study. J Crit Care. 2017;39:209-13.
3. Sutawan IBR, Wati DK, Suparyatha IBG. Association
of fluid overload with mortality in pediatric intensive care unit. Crit
Care Shock. 2016;19:8-13.
4. Chen J, Li X, Bai Z, Fang F, Hua J, Li Y, et al.
Association of fluid accumulation with clinical outcomes in critically
ill children with severe sepsis. PloS One. 2016;11:e0160093.
5. Alobaidi R, Morgan C, Basu RK, Stenson E,
Featherstone R, Majumdar SR, et al. Association between fluid
balance and outcomes in critically ill children: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172:257-68.
6. Malbrain MLNG, Marik PE, Witters I, Cordemans C,
Kirkpatrick AW, Roberts DJ, et al. Fluid overload,
de-resuscitation, and outcomes in critically ill or injured patients: a
systematic review with suggestions for clinical practice. Anaesthesiol
Intensive Ther. 2014;46:361-80.
7. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Acute
Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Clinical Trials Network, Wiedemann
HP, Wheeler AP, Bernard GR, Thompson BT, Hayden D, deBoisblanc B, et
al. Comparison of two fluid-management strategies in acute lung
injury. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:2564-75.
8. Sakr Y, Vincent J-L, Reinhart K, Groeneveld J,
Michalopoulos A, Sprung CL, et al. High tidal volume and positive
fluid balance are associated with worse outcome in acute lung injury.
Chest. 2005;128:3098-108.
9. Ostermann M, Straaten HMO, Forni LG. Fluid
overload and acute kidney injury: cause or consequence? Crit Care Lond
Engl. 2015;19:443.
10. Kwiatkowski DM, Goldstein SL, Cooper DS, Nelson
DP, Morales DLS, Krawczeski CD. Peritoneal dialysis vs furosemide for
prevention of fluid overload in infants after cardiac surgery: a
randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171:35764.
|
|
|
|