Dataset Information

Estimating mean circulatory filling pressure in clinical practice: a systematic review comparing three bedside methods in the critically ill.

ABSTRACT: The bedside hemodynamic assessment of the critically ill remains challenging since blood volume, arterial-venous interaction and compliance are not measured directly. Mean circulatory filling pressure (P_mcf) is the blood pressure throughout the vascular system at zero flow. Animal studies have shown P_mcf provides information on vascular compliance, volume responsiveness and enables the calculation of stressed volume. It is now possible to measure P_mcf at the bedside. We performed a systematic review of the current P_mcf measurement techniques and compared their clinical applicability, precision, accuracy and limitations. A comprehensive search strategy was performed in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane databases. Studies measuring P_mcf in heart-beating patients at the bedside were included. Data were extracted from the articles into predefined forms. Quality assessment was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. A total of 17 prospective cohort studies were included. Three techniques were described: P_mcf hold, based on inspiratory hold-derived venous return curves, P_mcf arm, based on arterial and venous pressure equilibration in the arm as a model for the entire circulation, and P_mcf analogue, based on a Guytonian mathematical model of the circulation. The included studies show P_mcf to accurately follow intravascular fluid administration and vascular compliance following drug-induced hemodynamic changes. Bedside P_mcf measures allow for more direct assessment of circulating blood volume, venous return and compliance. However, studies are needed to determine normative P_mcf values and their expected changes to therapies if they are to be used to guide clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Wijnberge M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6010367 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Estimating mean circulatory filling pressure in clinical practice: a systematic review comparing three bedside methods in the critically ill.

Wijnberge Marije M Sindhunata Daniko P DP Pinsky Michael R MR Vlaar Alexander P AP Ouweneel Else E Jansen Jos R JR Veelo Denise P DP Geerts Bart F BF

Annals of intensive care 20180620 1

The bedside hemodynamic assessment of the critically ill remains challenging since blood volume, arterial-venous interaction and compliance are not measured directly. Mean circulatory filling pressure (Pmcf) is the blood pressure throughout the vascular system at zero flow. Animal studies have shown Pmcf provides information on vascular compliance, volume responsiveness and enables the calculation of stressed volume. It is now possible to measure Pmcf at the beds ...[more]

PMID: 29926230

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: A decade ago, it became possible to derive mean systemic filling pressure (MSFP) at the bedside using the inspiratory hold maneuver. MSFP has the potential to help guide hemodynamic care, but the estimation is not yet implemented in common clinical practice. In this study, we assessed the ability of MSFP, vascular compliance (Csys), and stressed volume (Vs) to track fluid boluses. Second, we assessed the feasibility of implementation of MSFP in the intensive care unit (ICU). Exploratory, a potential difference in MSFP response between colloids and crystalloids was assessed. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study in adult patients admitted to the ICU after cardiac surgery. The MSFP was determined using 3-4 inspiratory holds with incremental pressures (maximum 35 cm H2O) to construct a venous return curve. Two fluid boluses were administered: 100 and 500 ml, enabling to calculate Vs and Csys. Patients were randomized to crystalloid or colloid fluid administration. Trained ICU consultants acted as study supervisors, and protocol deviations were recorded. Results: A total of 20 patients completed the trial. MSFP was able to track the 500 ml bolus (p < 0.001). In 16 patients (80%), Vs and Csys could be determined. Vs had a median of 2029 ml (IQR 1605-3164), and Csys had a median of 73 ml mmHg-1 (IQR 56-133). A difference in response between crystalloids and colloids was present for the 100 ml fluid bolus (p = 0.019) and in a post hoc analysis, also for the 500 ml bolus (p = 0.010). Conclusion: MSFP can be measured at the bedside and provides insights into the hemodynamic status of a patient that are currently missing. The clinical feasibility of Vs and Csys was judged ambiguously based on the lack of required hemodynamic stability. Future studies should address the clinical obstacles found in this study, and less-invasive alternatives to determine MSFP should be further explored. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03139929.

Project description:BackgroundIn randomized clinical controlled trials, the choice of usual care as the comparator may be associated with better clinician uptake of the study protocol and lead to more generalizable results. However, if care processes evolve to resemble the intervention during the course of a trial, differences between the intervention group and usual care control group may narrow. We evaluated the effect on mean arterial pressure of an unblinded trial comparing a lower mean arterial pressure target to reduce vasopressor exposure, vs. a clinician-selected mean arterial pressure target, in critically ill patients at least 65 years old.MethodsFor this multicenter observational study using data collected both prospectively and retrospectively, patients were recruited from five of the seven trial sites. We compared the mean arterial pressure of patients receiving vasopressors, who met or would have met trial eligibility criteria, from two periods: [1] at least 1 month before the trial started, and [2] during the trial period and randomized to usual care, or not enrolled in the trial.ResultsWe included 200 patients treated before and 229 after trial initiation. There were no differences in age (mean 74.5 vs. 75.2 years; p = 0.28), baseline Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (median 26 vs. 26; p = 0.47) or history of chronic hypertension (n = 126 [63.0%] vs. n = 153 [66.8%]; p = 0.41). Mean of the mean arterial pressure was similar between the two periods (72.5 vs. 72.4 mmHg; p = 0.76).ConclusionsThe initiation of a trial of a prescribed lower mean arterial pressure target, compared to a usual clinician-selected target, was not associated with a change in mean arterial pressure, reflecting stability in the net effect of usual clinician practices over time. Comparing prior and concurrent control groups may alleviate concerns regarding drift in usual practices over the course of a trial or permit quantification of any change.

Project description:BackgroundIncreased or decreased blood pressure variability may affect the perfusion of tissues and organs, leading to acute kidney injury and death. This study was conducted to explore the relationship between mean arterial pressure variability and short- and long-term mortality in critically ill patients.MethodsWe used patient data from the MIMIC-III database for cohort study. According to the recorded mean arterial pressure during the first 24 h in the intensive care unit, we calculated each patient's two variability parameters -coefficient of variation and average real variability. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcomes were 28-day mortality and 1-year mortality. We conducted smooth spline models to examine the possible nonlinear associations between blood pressure variability and mortality. According to the smoothing curve, we further developed a two-piecewise linear regression model to find out the threshold effect. Multivariable logistic regression or Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relationship. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis for 28-day and 1-year mortality was performed. Subgroup analysis explored the factors modifying the relationship between them.ResultsA total of 12,867 patients were enrolled in the study, 1,320 in-hospital death, 1,399 28-day death, and 2,734 1-year death occurred. The smooth spline showed death risk was the lowest when average real variability was around 7.2 mmHg. After adjusting for covariates, logistic or Cox regression showed the highest MAP variability level was strongly associated with increased mortality in the hospital (odds ratio: 1.44; 95% CI, 1.21∼1.72), at 28 days (hazard ratio: 1.28; 95% CI, 1.1∼1.5), and at 1 year (hazard ratio: 1.27; 95% CI, 1.14∼1.42) compared with the second level of average real variability group. The survival curve plot showed patients with higher average real variability had a higher risk of 28-day and 1-year mortality. This relationship remained remarkable in patients with low or high Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores in the sensitivity analysis. The two-piecewise linear regression model showed that lower ARV was a risk factor for 28-day (HR 0.72, 95% CI, 0.57∼0.91) and 1-year mortality (HR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.68∼0.96) when ARV was less than 7.2 mmHg, higher ARV was a risk factor for 28-day mortality (HR 1.1, 95% CI, 1.04∼1.17) and 1-year mortality (HR 1.07, 95% CI, 1.02∼1.12) when ARV was greater than 7.2 mmHg.ConclusionBlood pressure variability predicts mortality in critically ill patients. Individuals with higher or lower mean arterial pressure average real variability during the first day in ICU may have an increased risk of death.

Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an ongoing public health crisis that has led to many deaths due to multiple organ dysfunction syndromes (MODS). This article describes the clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients who survived the disease through mechanical circulatory support (MCS).MethodsWe studied 25 critically ill COVID-19 patients who underwent MCS from January 20, 2020, to April 10, 2020, at the Tongji Hospital of Huazhong University of Science and Technology.ResultsThirteen (52%) of the 25 patients survived with MCS support, while 12 (48%) died. At the time of their hospital admission, we identified significant differences in their peak cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and interleukin 6 (IL-6) levels, as well as in their lymphocyte count and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels. Cox proportional hazards regression model revealed that receipt of renal replacement therapy (RRT) was associated with an approximately 20-fold improvement in survival [hazard ratio (HR) =0.049, 95% confidence interval (CI) =0.008 to 0.305]. The number of days spent on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support and the use of hydrogen (pH) at the time of MCS was also associated with an increase in survival. This contrasted with high-sensitivity C-reactive proteins (hs-CRP) and lactate, associated with a decrease in survival during MCS. Further analysis of the determinants relating to a COVID-19 patient's chance of survival on/after MCS was also indicated by levels of IL-6 (β=0.009, P=0.006), IL-8 (β=0.031, P=0.020), and TNF-α (β=0.107, P=0.014), which saw a significant increase in the 12 patients who died. This contrasts with the non-significant decrease in IL-6, IL-8, and TNF-α levels in the 13 patients who survived.ConclusionsThese results indicate that pH, lactate, hs-CRP, ECMO duration, and RRT are important clinical determinants for assessing how MCS can increase the chances of critically ill COVID-19 patients surviving the disease.

Project description:Mean systemic filling pressure (Pms) is a promising parameter in determining intravascular fluid status. Pms derived from venous return curves during inspiratory holds with incremental airway pressures (Pms-Insp) estimates Pms reliably but is labor-intensive. A computerized algorithm to calculate Pms (Pmsa) at the bedside has been proposed. In previous studies Pmsa and Pms-Insp correlated well but with considerable bias. This observational study was performed to validate Pmsa with Pms-Insp in cardiac surgery patients. Cardiac output, right atrial pressure and mean arterial pressure were prospectively recorded to calculate Pmsa using a bedside monitor. Pms-Insp was calculated offline after performing inspiratory holds. Intraclass-correlation coefficient (ICC) and assessment of agreement were used to compare Pmsa with Pms-Insp. Bias, coefficient of variance (COV), precision and limits of agreement (LOA) were calculated. Proportional bias was assessed with linear regression. A high degree of inter-method reliability was found between Pmsa and Pms-Insp (ICC 0.89; 95%CI 0.72-0.96, p = 0.01) in 18 patients. Pmsa and Pms-Insp differed not significantly (11.9 mmHg, IQR 9.8-13.4 vs. 12.7 mmHg, IQR 10.5-14.4, p = 0.38). Bias was -0.502 ± 1.90 mmHg (p = 0.277). COV was 4% with LOA -4.22 - 3.22 mmHg without proportional bias. Conversion coefficient Pmsa ➔ Pms-Insp was 0.94. This assessment of agreement demonstrates that the measures Pms-Insp and the computerized Pmsa-algorithm are interchangeable (bias -0.502 ± 1.90 mmHg with conversion coefficient 0.94). The choice of Pmsa is straightforward, it is non-interventional and available continuously at the bedside in contrast to Pms-Insp which is interventional and calculated off-line. Further studies should be performed to determine the place of Pmsa in the circulatory management of critically ill patients. ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ; TRN NCT04202432, release date 16-12-2019; retrospectively registered).Clinical Trial Registration www.ClinicalTrials.gov , TRN: NCT04202432, initial release date 16-12-2019 (retrospectively registered).

Project description:BackgroundDespite improvements in intermittent hemodialysis management, intradialytic hemodynamic instability (IHI) remains a common issue that could account for increased mortality and delayed renal recovery. However, predictive factors of IHI remain poorly explored. The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between baseline macrohemodynamic, tissue hypoperfusion parameters and IHI occurrence.MethodsProspective observational study conducted in a 18-bed medical ICU of a tertiary teaching hospital. Cardiovascular SOFA score, index capillary refill time (CRT) and lactate level were measured just before (T0) consecutive intermittent hemodialysis sessions performed for AKI. The occurrence of IHI requiring a therapeutic intervention was recorded.ResultsTwo hundred eleven sessions, corresponding to 72 (34%) first sessions and 139 (66%) later sessions, were included. As IHI mostly occurred during first sessions (43% vs 12%, P < 0.0001), following analyses were performed on the 72 first sessions. At T0, cardiovascular SOFA score ≥1 (87% vs 51%, P = 0.0021) was more frequent before IHI sessions, as well as index CRT ≥ 3 s (55% vs 15%, P = 0.0004), and hyperlactatemia > 2 mmol/L (68% vs 29%, P = 0.0018). Moreover, the occurrence of IHI increased with the number of macrohemodynamic and tissue perfusion impaired parameters, named SOCRATE score (cardiovascular SOFA, index CRT and lactATE): 10% (95% CI [3%, 30%]), 33% (95% CI [15%, 58%]), 55% (95% CI [35%, 73%]) and 80% (95% CI [55%, 93%]) for 0, 1, 2 and 3 parameters, respectively (AUC = 0.79 [0.69-0.89], P < 0.0001). These results were confirmed by analyzing the 139 later sessions included in the study.ConclusionsThe SOCRATE score based on 3 easy-to-use bedside parameters correlates with the risk of IHI. By improving risk stratification of IHI, this score could help clinicians to manage intermittent hemodialysis initiation in critically ill AKI patients.

Dataset Information

Estimating mean circulatory filling pressure in clinical practice: a systematic review comparing three bedside methods in the critically ill.

Publications

Estimating mean circulatory filling pressure in clinical practice: a systematic review comparing three bedside methods in the critically ill.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets