BackgroundThe fluid challenge is considered the gold standard for diagnosis of fluid responsiveness. The objective of this study was to describe the fluid challenge techniques reported in fluid responsiveness studies and to assess the difference in the proportion of ‘responders,’ (PR) depending on the type of fluid, volume, duration of infusion and timing of assessment.MethodsSearches of MEDLINE and Embase were performed for studies using the fluid challenge as a test of cardiac preload with a description of the technique, a reported definition of fluid responsiveness and PR. The primary outcome was the mean PR, depending on volume of fluid, type of fluids, rate of infusion and time of assessment.ResultsA total of 85 studies (3601 patients) were included in the analysis. The PR were 54.4% (95% CI 46.9–62.7) where <500 ml was administered, 57.2% (95% CI 52.9–61.0) where 500 ml was administered and 60.5% (95% CI 35.9–79.2) where >500 ml was administered (p = 0.71). The PR was not affected by type of fluid. The PR was similar among patients administered a fluid challenge for <15 minutes (59.2%, 95% CI 54.2–64.1) and for 15–30 minutes (57.7%, 95% CI 52.4–62.4, p = 1). Where the infusion time was ≥30 minutes, there was a lower PR of 49.9% (95% CI 45.6–54, p = 0.04). Response was assessed at the end of fluid challenge, between 1 and 10 minutes, and >10 minutes after the fluid challenge. The proportions of responders were 53.9%, 57.7% and 52.3%, respectively (p = 0.47).ConclusionsThe PR decreases with a long infusion time. A standard technique for fluid challenge is desirable.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1796-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Acute myocardial damage is common in severe COVID-19. Post-mortem studies have implicated microvascular thrombosis, with cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) demonstrating a high prevalence of myocardial infarction and myocarditis-like scar. The microcirculatory sequelae are incompletely characterized. Perfusion CMR can quantify the stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) and identify its association with infarction and myocarditis.Objectives: To determine the impact of the severe hospitalized COVID-19 on global and regional myocardial perfusion in recovered patients.Methods: A case-control study of previously hospitalized, troponin-positive COVID-19 patients was undertaken. The results were compared with a propensity-matched, pre-COVID chest pain cohort (referred for clinical CMR; angiography subsequently demonstrating unobstructed coronary arteries) and 27 healthy volunteers (HV). The analysis used visual assessment for the regional perfusion defects and AI-based segmentation to derive the global and regional stress and rest MBF.Results: Ninety recovered post-COVID patients {median age 64 [interquartile range (IQR) 54–71] years, 83% male, 44% requiring the intensive care unit (ICU)} underwent adenosine-stress perfusion CMR at a median of 61 (IQR 29–146) days post-discharge. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 67 ± 10%; 10 (11%) with impaired LVEF. Fifty patients (56%) had late gadolinium enhancement (LGE); 15 (17%) had infarct-pattern, 31 (34%) had non-ischemic, and 4 (4.4%) had mixed pattern LGE. Thirty-two patients (36%) had adenosine-induced regional perfusion defects, 26 out of 32 with at least one segment without prior infarction. The global stress MBF in post-COVID patients was similar to the age-, sex- and co-morbidities of the matched controls (2.53 ± 0.77 vs. 2.52 ± 0.79 ml/g/min, p = 0.10), though lower than HV (3.00 ± 0.76 ml/g/min, p&lt; 0.01).Conclusions: After severe hospitalized COVID-19 infection, patients who attended clinical ischemia testing had little evidence of significant microvascular disease at 2 months post-discharge. The high prevalence of regional inducible ischemia and/or infarction (nearly 40%) may suggest that occult coronary disease is an important putative mechanism for troponin elevation in this cohort. This should be considered hypothesis-generating for future studies which combine ischemia and anatomical assessment.

Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background  Acute myocardial damage is common in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19, with evidence of myocardial infarction and myocarditis demonstrated on cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Post-mortem studies have also implicated microvascular thrombosis, which may cause persistent microvascular disease.  Purpose  To determine the long-term coronary sequelae in recovered COVID-19 using multiparametric CMR including state-of-the-art inline quantitative stress myocardial blood flow (sMBF) mapping to assess global and regional sMBF. Methods  Prospective, multicentre observational study of recovered COVID-19 patients scanned at three London CMR units. Results were compared to a propensity-matched, pre-COVID chest pain cohort (104 patients referred for perfusion CMR, with subsequently demonstrated unobstructed coronary arteries) and 27 healthy volunteers (HV). Perfusion image analysis was performed using a novel artificial intelligence approach deriving global and regional stress and rest MBF with a cut-off of &gt;2.25mL/g/min signifying normal sMBF and &lt;1.82mL/g/min abnormal sMBF (Kotecha JCVI 2019).  Results  104 recovered, post-COVID patients (median age 62 years, 76% male; 89[87%] hospitalised, 41/89[46%] requiring ICU) underwent adenosine-stress perfusion CMR at a median 131(IQR 43-179) days from COVID-19 diagnosis. Median LVEF was 67% (IQR 60-71%; 12 (11.5%) with impaired LVEF), 51 patients (49%) had late gadolinium enhancement (LGE); 18% infarct-pattern and 33% non-ischaemic LGE.  Global stress MBF in post-COVID patients was no different to age-, sex- and co-morbidities-matched controls (2.57 ± 0.77 vs. 2.40 ± 0.75 ml/g/min, p = 0.11, Figure 1), though lower than HV (3.00 ± 0.76 ml/g/min, p = 0.001). Post-COVID, multivariate predictors of low sMBF were male sex (OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.41-0.80, p = 0.001) and hypertension (OR 0.67, 95%CI 0.51-0.88, p = 0.004), but not COVID-19 disease severity (ICU admission) or presence of scar (ischemic/non-ischemic).  21/42 with reduced sMBF (&lt;2.25mL/g/min) had regional perfusion defects consistent with epicardial coronary disease. Conclusions   COVID-19 survivors do not demonstrate evidence of reduced global MBF by CMR compared to risk factor matched controls. Stress perfusion CMR identifies etiology of acute myocardial damage (infarction/myocarditis) and presence of occult coronary ischemia.