Cited by 9Hemodynamic Monitoring and TherapySepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation

Non-invasive Cardiac Output Monitoring and Assessment of Fluid Responsiveness in Children With Shock in the Emergency Department

Open access
Awadhare, Pranali, Patel, Radha, McCallin, Tracy, Mainali, Kiran, Jackson, Kelly, Starke, Hannah, Bhalala, Utpal·2022·Frontiers in Pediatrics

Abstract

Introduction: The assessment of fluid responsiveness is important in the management of shock but conventional methods of assessing fluid responsiveness are often inaccurate. Our study aims to evaluate changes in objective hemodynamic parameters as measured using electrical cardiometry (ICON ® monitor) following the fluid bolus in children presenting with shock and to evaluate whether any specific hemodynamic parameter can best predict fluid responsiveness among children with shock. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study in children presenting with shock to our emergency department between June 2020 and March 2021. We collected the parameters such as heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and hemodynamic data such as cardiac output CO), cardiac index (CI), index of contractility (ICON), stroke volume (SV), stroke index (SI), corrected flow time (FTC), systolic time ratio (STR), variation of index of contractility (VIC), stroke volume variation (SVV), systemic vascular resistance (SVR), and thoracic fluid content (TFC) using the ICON monitor before and after fluid bolus (FB). We assessed percent change (Δ) and used paired-sample Student’s t -test to compare pre- and post-hemodynamic data and Mann–Whitney U -test to compare fluid responders and non-responders. P -Values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: We recorded 42 fluid interventions in 40 patients during our study period. The median IQR age was 10.56 (4.8, 14.8) years with male/female ratio (1.2:1). There was a significant decrease in ΔRR [−1.61 (−14.8, 0); p = 0.012], ΔDBP [−5.5 (−14.4, 8); p = 0.027], ΔMAP [−2.2 (−11, 2); p = 0.018], ΔSVR [−5.8 (−20, 5.2); p = 0.025], and ΔSTR [−8.39 (−21, 3); p = 0.001] and significant increase in ΔTFC [6.2 (3.5, 11.4); p = 0.01] following FB. We defined fluid responders by an increase in SV by ≥10% after a single FB of 20 ml/kg crystalloid. Receiver operating curve analysis revealed that among all the parameters, 15% change in ICON had an excellent AUC (0.85) for the fluid responsiveness. Conclusion: Our study showed significant changes in objective hemodynamic parameters, such as SVR, STR, and TFC following FB in children presenting with shock. A 15% change in ICON had an excellent predictive performance for the fluid responsiveness among our cohort of pediatric shock.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fped.2022.857106

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Thoracic fluid content measured by electrical cardiometry evaluates fluid responsiveness in children with shock.

    “evaluating fluid responsiveness in children with shock [77]”

    From Trends and Challenges in Noninvasive Hemodynamic Monitoring of Neonates Following Cardiac Surgery: A Narrative Review (2025) · cites this paper as [77]

    The Methods report measuring thoracic fluid content (TFC) with an electrical cardiometry device in children with shock. But the Results (Effects of Fluid Therapy and Fluid Responsiveness; page not available) found no significant difference in TFC change between fluid responders and non-responders. The paper identifies other measures—not TFC—as predictors of fluid responsiveness. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Awadhare, P., Patel, R., McCallin, T., Mainali, K., Jackson, K., Starke, H., & Bhalala, U.
Affiliations
  • Children's Hospital of San Antonio (US)
  • University of the Incarnate Word (US)
  • University Hospitals of Cleveland (US)
  • Driscoll Children's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Bhalala, Utpal
Venue
Frontiers in Pediatrics
Published
2022-04-07
Volume
10
Pages
857106-857106
ISSN
2296-2360 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4225647000
Cited by
9
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2
FWCI
1.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Pediatrics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Trauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Keywords
fluid responsiveness, pediatric shock, cardiac output monitoring, electrical cardiometry, fluid bolus, hemodynamic parameters, stroke volume variation, systemic vascular resistance, thoracic fluid content, children, emergency department, non-invasive monitoring, fluid resuscitation, urine output, urine specific gravity, urine osmolality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review