A 55-year-old man with septic shock is admitted to the ICU. He is mechanically ventilated and sedated. His CVP is measured at 8 mm Hg. Which statement best describes the utility of this measurement in assessing his fluid responsiveness?

• A CVP of 8 mm Hg indicates that the patient is unlikely to respond to fluid administration.

• CVP is a reliable predictor of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients.

• CVP has poor predictive value for fluid responsiveness and should not be used alone to guide therapy.

• A CVP of 8 mm Hg confirms adequate intravascular volume status.

A 60-year-old woman with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is receiving mechanical ventilation. Her tidal volume is set at 6 mL/kg. You want to assess her fluid responsiveness using pulse pressure variation (PPV). What limitation should you consider before interpreting PPV in this patient?

• PPV is unreliable in patients with ARDS due to high intra-abdominal pressure.

• PPV requires a tidal volume of at least 8 mL/kg for accurate results.

• PPV cannot be used in patients with spontaneous breathing efforts.

• PPV is only valid in patients with cardiac arrhythmias.

A 45-year-old man with hypovolemic shock is being resuscitated in the emergency department. Bedside ultrasound shows an inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter of 9 mm with >50% collapsibility during inspiration. What does this finding suggest?

• The patient is likely euvolemic.

• The patient is likely hypervolemic.

• The patient is likely hypovolemic and may benefit from fluid resuscitation.

• The IVC findings are inconclusive without measuring central venous pressure.

A 70-year-old man with chronic heart failure presents with worsening dyspnea. Chest radiography shows vascular pedicle width (VPW) of 75 mm. What does this finding most likely indicate?

• Normal intravascular volume status.

• Hypovolemia.

• Hypervolemia or fluid overload.

• Pulmonary hypertension.

A 35-year-old woman with septic shock is undergoing fluid resuscitation. Passive leg raising (PLR) is performed, and stroke volume increases by 12%. What is the most appropriate next step?

• Administer a fluid bolus as the patient is likely fluid-responsive.

• Avoid further fluid administration as the patient is not fluid-responsive.

• Repeat PLR as the test is inconclusive.

• Measure central venous pressure to confirm fluid responsiveness.

A 65-year-old man with acute kidney injury is being evaluated for fluid status. Bioimpedance vector analysis (BIVA) shows a short vector length. What does this finding suggest?

• The patient is likely hypovolemic.

• The patient is likely hypervolemic.

• The patient has normal intravascular volume.

• The patient has increased extracellular water but normal intravascular volume.

A 50-year-old woman with severe sepsis is mechanically ventilated. Her pulse pressure variation (PPV) is 15%. What does this indicate about her fluid status?

• She is unlikely to respond to fluid administration.

• She is likely to respond to fluid administration.

• PPV is inconclusive without measuring pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP).

• PPV is unreliable in septic patients.

A 40-year-old man with trauma is hypotensive and tachycardic. Ultrasound shows an IVC diameter of 18 mm with minimal respiratory variation. What is the most likely interpretation?

• The patient is hypovolemic.

• The patient is euvolemic.

• The patient is hypervolemic.

• The IVC findings are inconclusive without additional clinical data.

A 62-year-old man with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is admitted with respiratory failure. His CVP is 12 mm Hg. What is the most appropriate interpretation of this finding?

• The patient is hypervolemic.

• The patient is hypovolemic.

• CVP is unreliable in patients with COPD due to elevated intrathoracic pressures.

• CVP accurately reflects left ventricular preload in this patient.

A 58-year-old woman with septic shock undergoes passive leg raising (PLR), and her cardiac output increases by 8%. What is the most appropriate conclusion?

• The patient is fluid-responsive.

• The patient is not fluid-responsive.

• The test is inconclusive and should be repeated.

• PLR is unreliable in septic patients.