Volume Status and Prediction of Fluid Responsiveness
https://doi.org/10.35401/2541-9897-2026-11-1-132-139
Abstract
Background: The annually increasing number of surgical procedures worldwide makes the issue of adequate perioperative fluid therapy controversial. In the operating room, patients are exposed to various anesthetic and surgical factors, while their hemodynamics constantly change due to surgical trauma, blood loss, and other factors. Therefore, the question of the necessity of intraoperative fluid therapy remains particularly critical.
Objective: To analyze various methods for assessing a patient’s volume status and predicting their response to fluid therapy.
Materials and methods: The publication search was conducted independently by two researchers using databases and electronic libraries, including PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and eLibrary. Following the selection process, the 40 most informative publications were identified, which formed the basis of this review.
Results: This review describes static hemodynamic parameters, functional tests (mini-fluid challenge, passive leg raise, and end-expiratory occlusion test), and dynamic diagnostic methods (pulse pressure variation, systolic pressure variation and stroke volume variation, inferior vena cava collapsibility index, left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral, respiratory variation of peak systolic velocity, corrected carotid flow time, and internal jugular vein distensibility index). Numerous studies have demonstrated the superior predictive value of dynamic methods compared to static parameters; however, no universal diagnostic method currently exists.
Conclusion: The search for the optimal combination of methods to assess a patient’s volume status and predict their response to fluid therapy remains a subject for further research.
About the Authors
O. V. Vorobyova
Ilyinskaya Hospital
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Olga V. Vorobyova - Anesthesiologist-Intensivist, Ilyinskaya Hospital.
2 Rublyovskoye Predmestye St., bldg.2, Glukhovo village, Krasnogorsk Urban Dist., Moscow Reg., 143421
V. A. Avetisian
Ilyinskaya Hospital
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vaagn A. Avetisian - Cand. Sci. (Med.), Anesthesiologist-Intensivist, Head of Anesthesiology Department, Ilyinskaya Hospital.
Glukhovo
M. A. Dzhopua
Ilyinskaya Hospital
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Maksim A. Dzhopua - Cand. Sci. (Med.), Anesthesiologist-Intensivist, Ilyinskaya Hospital.
Glukhovo
V. Yu. Voronkov
National Medical Research Center of Transplantology and Artificial Organs named V.I. Shumakov
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vladislav Yu. Voronkov - Anesthesiologist-Intensivist, National Medical Research Center of Transplantology and Artificial Organs named V.I. Shumakov.
Moscow
V. A. Koriachkin
Saint Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Victor A. Koriachkin - Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation, and Emergency Pediatrics named after V.I. Gordeev, Saint Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University.
Saint Petersburg
References
1. Voldby AW, Brandstrup B. Fluid therapy in the perioperative setting-a clinical review. J Intensive Care. 2016;4:27. PMID: 27087980. PMCID: PMC4833950. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-016-0154-3
2. Zhikharev VA, Malyshev YuP, Shanina LG, Peschanskaya OI, Rogovik DV, Sitnik SD. Relation of volemic support to acute post-operative respiratory insufficiency development following thoracic oncological surgery. Innovative Medicine of Kuban. 2017;8(4):12-20. (In Russ.)
3. Monnet X, Marik PE, Teboul JL. Prediction of fluid responsiveness: an update. Ann Intensive Care. 2016;6(1):111. PMID: 27858374. PMCID: PMC5114218. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-016-0216-7
4. Cavallaro F, Sandroni C, Antonelli M. Functional hemodynamic monitoring and dynamic indices of fluid responsiveness. Minerva Anestesiol. 2008;74(4):123-135. PMID: 18212731
5. Kirov MY, Kuzkov VV, Saugel B. Advanced Hemodynamic Monitoring: Basics and New Horizons. Springer International Publishing; 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71752-0
6. Muller L, Toumi M, Bousquet PJ, et al. An increase in aortic blood flow after an infusion of 100 ml colloid over 1 minute can predict fluid responsiveness: the mini-fluid challenge study. Anesthesiology. 2011;115(3):541-547. PMID: 21792056. https://doi.org/10.1097/aln.0b013e318229a500
7. Biais M, de Courson H, Lanchon R, et al. Mini-fluid Challenge of 100 ml of Crystalloid Predicts Fluid Responsiveness in the Operating Room. Anesthesiology. 2017;127(3):450-456. PMID: 28640019. https://doi.org/10.1097/aln.0000000000001753
8. Messina A, Lionetti G, Foti L, et al. Mini fluid chAllenge aNd End-expiratory occlusion test to assess fluid responsiveness in the operating room (MANEUVER study): A multicentre cohort study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2021;38(4):422-431. PMID: 33399372. https://doi.org/10.1097/eja.0000000000001406
9. Cherpanath TG, Hirsch A, Geerts BF, et al. Predicting Fluid Responsiveness by Passive Leg Raising: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 23 Clinical Trials. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(5):981-991. PMID: 26741579. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000001556
10. Monnet X, Marik P, Teboul JL. Passive leg raising for predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(12):1935-1947. PMID: 26825952. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-015-4134-1
11. Minini A, Abraham P, Malbrain MLNG. Predicting fluid responsiveness with the passive leg raising test: don’t be fooled by intra-abdominal hypertension!. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(12):799. PMID: 32647724. PMCID: PMC7333095. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2019.12.14
12. Monnet X, Teboul JL. Passive leg raising: five rules, not a drop of fluid!. Crit Care. 2015;19(1):18. PMID: 25658678. PMCID: PMC4293822. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-014-0708-5
13. Gavelli F, Teboul JL, Monnet X. The end-expiratory occlusion test: please, let me hold your breath!. Crit Care. 2019;23(1):274. PMID: 31391083. PMCID: PMC6686261. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-019-2554-y
14. Gavelli F, Shi R, Teboul JL, Azzolina D, Monnet X. The end-expiratory occlusion test for detecting preload responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intensive Care. 2020;10(1):65. PMID: 32449104. PMCID: PMC7246264. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-020-00682-8
15. Mulder MP, Potters JW, van Loon LM, et al. Context-specific clinical applicability of the end-expiratory occlusion test to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2025;42(8):737-746. PMID: 40260456. PMCID: PMC12237134. https://doi.org/10.1097/eja.0000000000002181
16. Myatra SN, Monnet X, Teboul JL. Use of ‘tidal volume challenge’ to improve the reliability of pulse pressure variation. Crit Care. 2017;21(1):60. PMID: 28320434. PMCID: PMC5359814. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-017-1637-x
17. Marik PE, Cavallazzi R, Vasu T, Hirani A. Dynamic changes in arterial waveform derived variables and fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review of the literature. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(9):2642-2647. PMID: 19602972. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181a590da
18. Hong JQ, He HF, Chen ZY, et al. Comparison of stroke volume variation with pulse pressure variation as a diagnostic indicator of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Saudi Med J. 2014;35(3):261-268. PMID: 24623206
19. Ilyina YY, Fot EV, Izotova NN. et al. Dynamic tests for assessing susceptibility to infusion load in septic shock. Russian Journal of Anesthesiology and Reanimatology. 2018; 63(2): 108-112. (In Russ.).
20. Cannesson M, Le Manach Y, Hofer CK, et al. Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of pulse pressure variations for the prediction of fluid responsiveness: a «gray zone» approach. Anesthesiology. 2011;115(2):231-241. PMID: 21705869. https://doi.org/10.1097/aln.0b013e318225b80a
21. Min JJ, Gil NS, Lee JH, Ryu DK, Kim CS, Lee SM. Predictor of fluid responsiveness in the ‘grey zone’: augmented pulse pressure variation through a temporary increase in tidal volume. Br J Anaesth. 2017;119(1):50-56. PMID: 28974059. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aex074
22. Kirov MYu, Gorobets ES, Bobovnik SV, et al. Principles of perioperative infusion therapy in adults. Russian Journal of Anesthesiology and Reanimatology. 2018;(6):82-103. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17116/anaesthesiology201806182
23. Di Nicolò P, Tavazzi G, Nannoni L, Corradi F. Inferior Vena Cava Ultrasonography for Volume Status Evaluation: An Intriguing Promise Never Fulfilled. J Clin Med. 2023;12(6):2217. PMID: 36983218. PMCID: PMC10053997. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12062217
24. Cardozo Júnior LCM, Lemos GSD, Besen BAMP. Fluid responsiveness assessment using inferior vena cava collapsibility among spontaneously breathing patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Intensiva (Engl Ed). 2023;47(2):90-98. PMID: 36272909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medine.2021.12.018
25. Tan C, Rubenson D, Srivastava A, et al. Left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral outperforms ejection fraction and Doppler-derived cardiac output for predicting outcomes in a select advanced heart failure cohort. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2017;15(1):18. PMID: 28673293. PMCID: PMC5496262. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12947-017-0109-4
26. Blanco P. Rationale for using the velocity-time integral and the minute distance for assessing the stroke volume and cardiac output in point-of-care settings. Ultrasound J. 2020;12(1):21. PMID: 32318842. PMCID: PMC7174466. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-020-00170-x
27. Asogwa N, Assaad M, Ling J, Wahbah Makhoul G, El Hage H. The Utility of Echocardiography in Estimating Fluid Responsiveness. J Clin Med Res. 2024;16(4):129-132. PMID: 38715562. PMCID: PMC11073387. https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr5114
28. Kebed K, Sun D, Addetia K, Mor-Avi V, Markuzon N, Lang RM. Measurement errors in serial echocardiographic assessments of aortic valve stenosis severity. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020;36(3):471-479. PMID: 31865497. PMCID: PMC7135919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-019-01745-z
29. Saji SZ, Murga O, Khurana S, et al. Utilization of left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral in the assessment of fluid responsiveness in adult patients with sepsis or septic shock – a systematic review. J Ultrasound. 2025;28(4):823-833. PMID: 40849404. PMCID: PMC12675858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-025-01072-1
30. Ibarra-Estrada MÁ, López-Pulgarín JA, Mijangos-Méndez JC, Díaz-Gómez JL, Aguirre-Avalos G. Respiratory variation in carotid peak systolic velocity predicts volume responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with septic shock: a prospective cohort study. Crit Ultrasound J. 2015;7(1):29. PMID: 26123610. PMCID: PMC4485670. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-015-0029-1
31. Ma IWY, Caplin JD, Azad A, et al. Correlation of carotid blood flow and corrected carotid flow time with invasive cardiac output measurements. Crit Ultrasound J. 2017;9(1):10. PMID: 28429291. PMCID: PMC5398973. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-017-0065-0
32. Zozulya MV, Lenkin AI. Evaluation of organ perfusion and intravascular volume status by ultrasound. Pacific Medical Journal. 2023;(1):27-34. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.34215/1609-1175-2023-1-27-34
33. Singla D, Gupta B, Varshney P, Mangla M, Walikar BN, Jamir T. Role of carotid corrected flow time and peak velocity variation in predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2023;76(3):183-193. PMID: 36377330. PMCID: PMC10244609. https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.22385
34. Beier L, Davis J, Esener D, Grant C, Fields JM. Carotid Ultrasound to Predict Fluid Responsiveness: A Systematic Review. J Ultrasound Med. 2020;39(10):1965-1976. PMID: 32314817. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.15301
35. Abbasi A, Azab N, Nayeemuddin M, et al. Change in Carotid Blood Flow and Carotid Corrected Flow Time Assessed by Novice Sonologists Fails to Determine Fluid Responsiveness in Spontaneously Breathing Intensive Care Unit Patients. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2020;46(10):2659-2666. PMID: 32747073. PMCID: PMC7771259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.07.001
36. Kim DH, Shin S, Kim N, Choi T, Choi SH, Choi YS. Carotid ultrasound measurements for assessing fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients: corrected flow time and respirophasic variation in blood flow peak velocity. Br J Anaesth. 2018;121(3):541-549. PMID: 30115251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2017.12.047
37. Elsaeed AMR, Nor El-Din BME, El Taher WAM. et al. Internal jugular vein distensibility variation and inferior vena cava collapsibility variation with fluid resuscitation as an indicator for fluid management in spontaneously breathing septic patients. Ain-Shams J Anesthesiol. 2022;14-26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42077-022-00226-1
38. Guarracino F, Ferro B, Forfori F, Bertini P, Magliacano L, Pinsky MR. Jugular vein distensibility predicts fluid responsiveness in septic patients. Crit Care. 2014;18(6):647. PMID: 25475099. PMCID: PMC4301660. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-014-0647-1
39. Ma GG, Hao GW, Yang XM, et al. Internal jugular vein variability predicts fluid responsiveness in cardiac surgical patients with mechanical ventilation. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8(1):6. PMID: 29340792. PMCID: PMC5770347. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-017-0347-5
40. Broilo F, Meregalli A, Friedman G. Right internal jugular vein distensibility appears to be a surrogate marker for inferior vena cava vein distensibility for evaluating fluid responsiveness. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2015;27(3):205-211. PMID: 26465243. PMCID: PMC4592113. https://doi.org/10.5935/0103-507x.20150042
Review
For citations:
Vorobyova O.V., Avetisian V.A., Dzhopua M.A., Voronkov V.Yu., Koriachkin V.A. Volume Status and Prediction of Fluid Responsiveness. Innovative Medicine of Kuban. 2026;11(1):132-139. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.35401/2541-9897-2026-11-1-132-139
Views:
347
JATS XML
Email this article 
