Why the study?
Body fluid balance is an independent predictor of mortality, prompting recent guidelines to endorse dynamic modeling for fluid responsiveness.
Does noninvasive bioreactance-based fluid management monitoring accurately predict fluid responsiveness?
Does noninvasive bioreactance-based fluid management monitoring accurately predict fluid responsiveness?
Bioreactance-based monitoring (STARLING) offers an accurate, noninvasive alternative to invasive methods for assessing fluid responsiveness.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Fluid overload may increase mortality; leaves open prospective validation of passive leg raising thresholds in cardiac critical care.
Body fluid balance is an independent predictor of mortality. For each liter of fluid over and above 5 L, risk-adjusted excess mortality is seen. Mortality increased by 2.3% for each 1 L of fluid and hospital costs increased by $999. Accordingly, most recent guidelines have endorsed dynamic modeling. Passive leg raising-induced increase of aortic blood flow ≥ 10% predicts fluid responsiveness with a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 94%. Thus, passive leg raising is often used as gold standard for validation of other procedures (though it's usefulness to assess respiratory variation in vena cava is not conclusive). STARLING, a device based on bioreactance, works on phase shift or time delay while bioimpedance works on the amplitude of the thoracic impedance. Unlike bioimpedance, bioreactance is not affected by the size of the patient, thoracic fluids, or position of sensors. STARLING is equipped with four sensor pads. Each pad contains two sensors, the outer sensor is a transmitting electrode and the inner sensor is a receiving electrode. The STARLING monitor induces a 75-KHz AC current. It then measures the time delay/phase shift. STARLING system, a bioreactance-based dynamic assessment system for fluid responsiveness, predicts it accurately, precisely, and noninvasively. It reduces invasive risks and is independently validated against pulmonary artery catheter. It is not affected by vasopressors or shock and has wide range of application.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mehta et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: