Effects of fluid administration on renal perfusion in critically ill patients

Table 7 Changes in resistivity index in patients who responded to fluid challenge with increased urine output but were hemodynamic non-responders

Increase in urine output	0.1 ml/kg/hour	0.2 ml/kg/hour	0.3 ml/kg/hour
<10 % increase in MAP
n/n’ (%)	19/32 (59 %)	16/27 (59 %)	14/25 (56 %)
RI	0.70 (0.67–0.77)	0.69 (0.63–0.74)	0.69 (0.62–0.76)
RI₂	0.67 (0.63–0.77)	0.67 (0.62–0.73)	0.67 (0.61–0.73)
p	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01
<10 % increase in MAP or PP
n/n’ (%)	12/32 (38 %)	10/27 (37 %)	9/25 (36 %)
RI	0.71 (0.67–0.77)	0.71 (0.65–0.76)	0.72 (0.64–0.77)
RI₂	0.70 (0.65–0.76)	0.69 (0.64–0.74)	0.67 (0.63–0.75)
p	0.182	0.09	0.08

Variables are shown as median and interquartile range and were compared using Wilcoxon test. MAP mean arterial pressure, n/n’ number of patients/total number of patients with increased urine output (as a percentage), PP, pulse pressure, RI resistivity index at baseline, RI₂ resistivity index after fluid challenge

ISSN: 1364-8535