Background: General pathophysiological mechanisms regarding associations between fluid administration and intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) are evident, but specific effects of type, amount, and timing of fluids are less clear. Objectives: This review aims to summarize current knowledge on associations between fluid administration and intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) and fluid management in patients at risk of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS). Methods: We performed a structured literature search from 1950 until May 2021 to identify evidence of associations between fluid management and intra-abdominal pressure not limited to any specific study or patient population. Findings were summarized based on the following information: general concepts of fluid management, physiology of fluid movement in patients with intra-abdominal hypertension, and data on associations between fluid administration and IAH. Results: We identified three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 38 prospective observational studies, 29 retrospective studies, 18 case reports in adults, two observational studies and 10 case reports in children, and three animal studies that addressed associations between fluid administration and IAH. Associations between fluid resuscitation and IAH were confirmed in most studies. Fluid resuscitation contributes to the development of IAH. However, patients with IAH receive more fluids to manage the effect of IAH on other organ systems, thereby causing a vicious cycle. Timing and approach to de-resuscitation are of utmost importance, but clear indicators to guide this decision-making process are lacking. In selected cases, only surgical decompression of the abdomen can stop deterioration and prevent further morbidity and mortality. Conclusions: Current evidence confirms an association between fluid resuscitation and secondary IAH, but optimal fluid management strategies for patients with IAH remain controversial.

Over recent decades, hemodynamic monitoring has evolved from basic cardiac output monitoring techniques to a broad variety of sophisticated monitoring devices with extra parameters. In order to reduce morbidity and mortality and optimize therapeutic strategies, different monitoring techniques can be used to guide fluid resuscitation and other medical management. Generally, they can be divided in calibrated and non-calibrated techniques. In the first part of this review, the available calibrated techniques, ranging from invasive to non-invasive, will be discussed. We performed a review of the literature in order to give an overview of the current hemodynamic monitoring devices. For each monitoring system, a short overview of the physical principles, the advantages and disadvantages and the available literature with regard to validation is given. Currently, many promising hemodynamic monitoring devices are readily available in order to optimize therapeutic management in both perioperative and ICU settings. Although several of these calibrated techniques have been validated in the literature, not all techniques have been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality. Many new techniques, especially some non-calibrated devices, lack good validation data in different clinical settings (sepsis, trauma, burns, etc.). The cardiac output values obtained with these techniques need therefore to be interpreted with caution as will be discussed in the second part of this concise review. Transthoracic echocardiography forms a good initial choice to assess hemodynamics in critically ill patients after initial stabilisation. However in complex situations or in patients not responding to fluid resuscitation alone, advanced hemodynamic monitoring is recommended with the use of calibrated techniques like transpulmonary thermodilution. Calibrated techniques are preferred in patients with severe shock and changing conditions of preload, afterload and contractility. The use of the pulmonary artery catheter should be reserved for patients with right ventricular failure in order to assess the effect of medical treatment.

There is much evidence that fluid overload leads to adverse outcomes in perioperative and critically ill patients. Cardiac output monitoring can help us guiding initial and ongoing fluid resuscitation and can help us to assess whether a patient will be responsive to fluids when hypotensive. In recent years, many sophisticated devices that measure a variety of hemodynamic parameters have evolved on the market. We wanted to provide an overview of the different techniques available today, including their validation in different patient populations. In this second part of the review, we focus on non-calibrated techniques, both invasive and non-invasive. For each technique a short overview of the working principle, together with the advantages, disadvantages and the available validation literature is listed. Many promising minimal invasive monitoring devices can help us to further optimize our hemodynamic treatment in both the perioperative and critical care setting. However, the validation data are scarce for many of these techniques, especially in complex circumstances with changing hemodynamics (preload, afterload and contractility), as with the use of fluids and vasoactive medication. The measurements made by these devices, therefore, need to be interpreted with caution. Further improvements and more validation data are needed before these techniques can be implemented in common day practice. Moreover, in severely shocked hemodynamic unstable patients, calibrated techniques are to be preferred over those which are uncalibrated. Hence, the new techniques not only need to be accurate, but also need to be precise in order to keep track of changes.

Introduction: The non-invasive analysis of body fluid composition with bio-electrical impedance analysis (BIA) provides additional information allowing for more persona­lised therapy to improve outcomes. The aim of this study is to assess the prognostic value of fluid overload (FO) in the first week of intensive care unit (ICU) stay.Material and methods: A retrospective, observational analysis of 101 ICU patients. Whole-body BIA measurements were performed, and FO was defined as a 5% increase in volume excess from baseline body weight.Results: Baseline demographic data, including severity scores, were similar in both the fluid overload-positive (FO+, n = 49) patients and in patients without fluid overload (FO–, n = 52). Patients with FO+ had significantly higher cumulative fluid balance during their ICU stay compared to those without FO (8.8 ± 7.0 vs. 5.5 ± 5.4 litres; P = 0.009), VE (9.9 ± 6.5 vs. 1.5 ± 1.5 litres; P < 0.001), total body water (63.0 ± 9.5 vs. 52.8 ± 8.1%; P < 0.001), and extracellular water (27.0 ± 7.3 vs. 19.6 ± 3.7 litres; P < 0.001). The presence of 5%, 7.5%, and 10% fluid overload was directly associated with increased ICU mortality rates. The percentage fluid overload (P = 0.039) was an independent predictor for hospital mortality.Conclusions: A higher mortality rate in ICU-patients with FO was observed. FO is an independent prognostic factor because neither APACHE-II, SOFA, nor SAPS-II significantly differed on admission between survivors and non-survivors. Further research is needed to confirm these data prospectively and to evaluate whether BIA-guided deresuscitation in the subacute phase will improve mortality rates.

Objective: To compare bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)-derived parameters in healthy volunteers and critically ill patients and to assess its prognostic value in an ICU patient cohort. Design: Retrospective, observational data analysis. Setting: Single centre, tertiary-level ICU (Ziekenhuis Netwerk Antwerpen, ZNA Stuivenberg Hospital). Patients: 101 patients and 101 healthy subjects, participants of International Fluid Academy Days. Measurements and main results: Compared to healthy volunteers, both male and female ICU patients had significantly higher values for total body water (TBW), extracellular water (ECW), extracellular fluid (ECF), plasma, and interstitial fluid volumes. The phase angle was significantly lower and the malnutrition index was significantly higher in ICU patients, regardless of gender. Non-survivors in the ICU had significantly higher extracellular water content (ECW, 50.7 ± 5.1 vs. 48.9 ± 4.3%, p = 0.047) and accordingly significantly lower intracellular water (ICW, 49.2 ± 5.1 vs. 51.1 ± 4.3%, p = 0.047). The malnutrition index was also significantly higher in non-survivors compared to survivors (0.94 ± 0.17 vs. 0.87 ± 0.16, p = 0.048), as was the capillary leak index (ECW/ICW). Conclusions: Compared to healthy volunteers, this study observed a higher malnutrition index and TBW in ICU patients with an accumulation of fluids in the extracellular compartment. ICU non-survivors showed similar results, indicating that ICU patients and a fortiori non-survivors are generally overhydrated, with increased TBW and ECW, and more undernourished, as indicated by a higher malnutrition index.