Dataset Information

Respiratory pulse pressure variation fails to predict fluid responsiveness in acute respiratory distress syndrome.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Fluid responsiveness prediction is of utmost interest during acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but the performance of respiratory pulse pressure variation (?RESPPP) has scarcely been reported. In patients with ARDS, the pathophysiology of ?RESPPP may differ from that of healthy lungs because of low tidal volume (Vt), high respiratory rate, decreased lung and sometimes chest wall compliance, which increase alveolar and/or pleural pressure. We aimed to assess ?RESPPP in a large ARDS population.

Methods

Our study population of nonarrhythmic ARDS patients without inspiratory effort were considered responders if their cardiac output increased by >10% after 500-ml volume expansion.

Results

Among the 65 included patients (26 responders), the area under the receiver-operating curve (AUC) for ?RESPPP was 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI95): 0.62 to 0.85), and a best cutoff of 5% yielded positive and negative likelihood ratios of 4.8 (CI95: 3.6 to 6.2) and 0.32 (CI95: 0.1 to 0.8), respectively. Adjusting ?RESPPP for Vt, airway driving pressure or respiratory variations in pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (?PAOP), a surrogate for pleural pressure variations, in 33 Swan-Ganz catheter carriers did not markedly improve its predictive performance. In patients with ?PAOP above its median value (4 mmHg), AUC for ?RESPPP was 1 (CI95: 0.73 to 1) as compared with 0.79 (CI95: 0.52 to 0.94) otherwise (P = 0.07). A 300-ml volume expansion induced a ? 2 mmHg increase of central venous pressure, suggesting a change in cardiac preload, in 40 patients, but none of the 28 of 40 nonresponders responded to an additional 200-ml volume expansion.

Conclusions

During protective mechanical ventilation for early ARDS, partly because of insufficient changes in pleural pressure, ?RESPPP performance was poor. Careful fluid challenges may be a safe alternative.

SUBMITTER: Lakhal K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3219343 | biostudies-literature | 2011

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Respiratory pulse pressure variation fails to predict fluid responsiveness in acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Lakhal Karim K Ehrmann Stephan S Benzekri-Lefèvre Dalila D Runge Isabelle I Legras Annick A Dequin Pierre-François PF Mercier Emmanuelle E Wolff Michel M Régnier Bernard B Boulain Thierry T

Critical care (London, England) 20110307 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>Fluid responsiveness prediction is of utmost interest during acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but the performance of respiratory pulse pressure variation (ΔRESPPP) has scarcely been reported. In patients with ARDS, the pathophysiology of ΔRESPPP may differ from that of healthy lungs because of low tidal volume (Vt), high respiratory rate, decreased lung and sometimes chest wall compliance, which increase alveolar and/or pleural pressure. We aimed to assess ΔRESPPP ...[more]

PMID: 21385348

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMaintaining a constant driving pressure during a prolonged sigh breath lung recruitment manoeuvre (LRM) from 20 to 45 cmH20 peak inspiratory pressure in mechanically ventilated patients has been shown to be a functional test to predict fluid responsiveness (FR) when using a linear regression model of hemodynamic parameters, such as central venous pressure (CVP) and pulse pressure (PP). However, two important limitations have been raised, the use of high ventilation pressures and a regression slope calculation that is difficult to apply at bedside. This ancillary study aimed to reanalyse absolute variations of CVP (ΔCVP) and PP (ΔPP) values at lower stages of the LRM, (40, 35, and 30 cm H20 of peak inspiratory pressure) for their ability to predict fluid responsiveness.MethodsRetrospective analysis of a prospective study data set in 18 mechanically ventilated patients, in an intensive care unit. CVP, systemic arterial pressure parameters and stroke volume (SV) were recorded during prolonged LRM followed by a 500 mL crystalloid volume expansion. Patients were considered as fluid responders if SV increased more than 10%. Receiver-operating curves (ROC) analysis with the corresponding grey zone approach were performed.ResultsAreas under the ROC to predict fluid responsiveness for ΔCVP and ΔPP were not different between the successive stepwise increase of inspiratory pressures [0.88 and 0.89 for ΔCVP at 45 and 30 cm H20 (P = 0.89), respectively, and 0.92 and 0.95 for ΔPP at 45 and 30 cm H20, respectively (P = 0.51)]. Using a maximum of 30 cmH2O inspiratory pressure during the LRM, ΔCVP and ΔPP had a threshold value to predict fluid responsiveness of 2 mmHg and 4 mmHg, with sensitivities of 89% and 89% and specificities of 67% and 89%, respectively. Combining ΔPP and ΔCVP decreased the proportion of the patients in the grey zone from 28 to 11% and showed a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 83%.ConclusionsA stepwise PEEP elevation recruitment manoeuvre of up to 30 cm H20 may predict fluid responsiveness as well as 45 cm H20. The combination of ΔPP and ΔCVP optimizes the categorization of responder and non-responder patients.

Project description:BackgroundProne position is frequently used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), especially during the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Our study investigated the ability of pulse pressure variation (PPV) and its changes during a tidal volume challenge (TVC) to assess preload responsiveness in ARDS patients under prone position.MethodsThis was a prospective study conducted in a 25-bed intensive care unit at a university hospital. We included patients with ARDS under prone position, ventilated with 6 mL/kg tidal volume and monitored by a transpulmonary thermodilution device. We measured PPV and its changes during a TVC (ΔPPV TVC6-8) after increasing the tidal volume from 6 to 8 mL/kg for one minute. Changes in cardiac index (CI) during a Trendelenburg maneuver (ΔCITREND) and during end-expiratory occlusion (EEO) at 8 mL/kg tidal volume (ΔCI EEO8) were recorded. Preload responsiveness was defined by both ΔCITREND ≥ 8% and ΔCI EEO8 ≥ 5%. Preload unresponsiveness was defined by both ΔCITREND < 8% and ΔCI EEO8 < 5%.ResultsEighty-four sets of measurements were analyzed in 58 patients. Before prone positioning, the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen was 104 ± 27 mmHg. At the inclusion time, patients were under prone position for 11 (2-14) hours. Norepinephrine was administered in 83% of cases with a dose of 0.25 (0.15-0.42) µg/kg/min. The positive end-expiratory pressure was 14 (11-16) cmH2O. The driving pressure was 12 (10-17) cmH2O, and the respiratory system compliance was 32 (22-40) mL/cmH2O. Preload responsiveness was detected in 42 cases. An absolute change in PPV ≥ 3.5% during a TVC assessed preload responsiveness with an area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve of 0.94 ± 0.03 (sensitivity: 98%, specificity: 86%) better than that of baseline PPV (0.85 ± 0.05; p = 0.047). In the 56 cases where baseline PPV was inconclusive (≥ 4% and < 11%), ΔPPV TVC6-8 ≥ 3.5% still enabled to reliably assess preload responsiveness (AUROC: 0.91 ± 0.05, sensitivity: 97%, specificity: 81%; p < 0.01 vs. baseline PPV).ConclusionIn patients with ARDS under low tidal volume ventilation during prone position, the changes in PPV during a TVC can reliably assess preload responsiveness without the need for cardiac output measurements.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04457739). Registered 30 June 2020 -Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT04457739.

Dataset Information

Respiratory pulse pressure variation fails to predict fluid responsiveness in acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Respiratory pulse pressure variation fails to predict fluid responsiveness in acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets