Dataset Information

End-expiratory occlusion test predicts fluid responsiveness in cardiac surgical patients in the operating theatre.

ABSTRACT: Background:The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a 20-second end-expiratory occlusion (EEO) test can predict fluid responsiveness in cardiac surgery patients in the operating theatre. Methods:This prospective study enrolled 75 mechanically ventilated patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Hemodynamic data coupled with transesophageal echocardiography monitoring of the velocity time integral (VTI) and the peak velocity (Vmax) at the left ventricular outflow tract were collected at each step (baseline 1, EEO, baseline 2 and fluid challenge). Patients were divided into fluid responders (increase in VTI ?15%) and non-responders (increase in VTI <15%) after a fluid challenge (6 mL 0.9% saline per kg, given in 10 minutes). Results:Fluid challenge significantly increased the VTI by more than 15% in 36 (48%) patients (responders). An increase in VTI greater than 5% during the EEO test predicted fluid responsiveness with a sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 93%. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of ?VTI-EEO was 0.90 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83-0.97]. ?Vmax-EEO was poorly predictive of fluid responsiveness, with an AUC of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.63-0.86). Conclusions:Changes in VTI induced by a 20-second EEO can reliably predict fluid responsiveness in cardiac surgical patients in the operating theatre, whereas the changes in Vmax cannot.

SUBMITTER: Xu LY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6694235 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

End-expiratory occlusion test predicts fluid responsiveness in cardiac surgical patients in the operating theatre.

Xu Li-Ying LY Tu Guo-Wei GW Cang Jing J Hou Jun-Yi JY Yu Ying Y Luo Zhe Z Guo Ke-Fang KF

Annals of translational medicine 20190701 14

<h4>Background</h4>The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a 20-second end-expiratory occlusion (EEO) test can predict fluid responsiveness in cardiac surgery patients in the operating theatre.<h4>Methods</h4>This prospective study enrolled 75 mechanically ventilated patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Hemodynamic data coupled with transesophageal echocardiography monitoring of the velocity time integral (VTI) and the peak velocity (Vmax) at the left ventr ...[more]

PMID: 31475185

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBedside functional hemodynamic assessment has gained in popularity in the last years to overcome the limitations of static or dynamic indexes in predicting fluid responsiveness. The aim of this systematic review and metanalysis of studies is to investigate the reliability of the functional hemodynamic tests (FHTs) used to assess fluid responsiveness in adult patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) and operating room (OR).MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were screened for relevant articles using a FHT, with the exception of the passive leg raising. The QUADAS-2 scale was used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. In-between study heterogeneity was assessed through the I2 indicator. Bias assessment graphs were plotted, and Egger's regression analysis was used to evaluate the publication bias. The metanalysis determined the pooled area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve, sensitivity, specificity, and threshold for two FHTs: the end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) and the mini-fluid challenge (FC).ResultsAfter text selection, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria, 7 performed in the OR, and 14 in the ICU between 2005 and 2018. The search included 805 patients and 870 FCs with a median (IQR) of 39 (25-50) patients and 41 (30-52) FCs per study. The median fluid responsiveness was 54% (45-59). Ten studies (47.6%) adopted a gray zone analysis of the ROC curve, and a median (IQR) of 20% (15-51) of the enrolled patients was included in the gray zone. The pooled area under the ROC curve for the end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) was 0.96 (95%CI 0.92-1.00). The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.86 (95%CI 0.74-0.94) and 0.91 (95%CI 0.85-0.95), respectively, with a best threshold of 5% (4.0-8.0%). The pooled area under the ROC curve for the mini-FC was 0.91 (95%CI 0.85-0.97). The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 (95%CI 0.76-0.88) and 0.83 (95%CI 0.77-0.89), respectively, with a best threshold of 5% (3.0-7.0%).ConclusionsThe EEOT and the mini-FC reliably predict fluid responsiveness in the ICU and OR. Other FHTs have been tested insofar in heterogeneous clinical settings and, despite promising results, warrant further investigations.

Project description:BackgroundThe end-expiratory occlusion (EEXPO) test detects preload responsiveness, but it is 15 s long and induces small changes in cardiac index (CI). It is doubtful whether the Starling bioreactance device, which averages CI over 24 s and refreshes the displayed value every 4 s (Starling-24.4), can detect the EEXPO-induced changes in CI (ΔCI). Our primary goal was to test whether this Starling device version detects preload responsiveness through EEXPO. We also tested whether shortening the averaging and refresh times to 8 s and one second, respectively, (Starling-8.1) improves the accuracy of the device in detecting preload responsiveness using EEXPO.MethodsIn 42 mechanically ventilated patients, during a 15-s EEXPO, we measured ∆CI through calibrated pulse contour analysis (CIpulse, PiCCO2 device) and using the Starling device. For the latter, we considered both CIStarling-24.4 from the commercial version and CIStarling-8.1 derived from the raw data. For relative ∆CIStarling-24.4 and ∆CIStarling-8.1 during EEXPO, we calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) to detect preload responsiveness, defined as an increase in CIpulse ≥ 10% during passive leg raising (PLR). For both methods, the correlation coefficient vs. ∆CIpulse was calculated.ResultsTwenty-six patients were preload responders and sixteen non preload-responders. The AUROC for ∆CIStarling-24.4 was significantly lower compared to ∆CIStarling-8.1 (0.680 ± 0.086 vs. 0.899 ± 0.049, respectively; p = 0.027). A significant correlation was observed between ∆CIStarling-8.1 and ∆CIpulse (r = 0.42; p = 0.009), but not between ∆CIStarling-24.4 and ∆CIpulse. During PLR, both ∆CIStarling-24.4 and ∆CIStarling-8.1 reliably detected preload responsiveness.ConclusionsShortening the averaging and refresh times of the bioreactance signal to 8 s and one second, respectively, increases the reliability of the Starling device in detection of EEXPO-induced ∆CI.Trial registrationNo.Idrcb2018-A02825-50. Registered 13 December 2018.

Project description:BackgroundAn increase in cardiac index (CI) during an end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOt) predicts fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients. However, if CI monitoring is unavailable or the echocardiographic window is difficult, using the carotid Doppler (CD) could be a feasible alternative to track CI changes. This study investigates whether changes in CD peak velocity (CDPV) and corrected flow time (cFT) during an EEOt were correlated with CI changes and if CDPV and cFT changes predicted fluid responsiveness in patients with septic shock.MethodsProspective, single-center study in adults with hemodynamic instability. The CDPV and cFT on carotid artery Doppler and hemodynamic variables from the pulse contour analysis EV1000™ were recorded at baseline, during a 20-s EEOt, and after fluid challenge (500 mL). We defined responders as those who increased CI ≥ 15% after a fluid challenge.ResultsWe performed 44 measurements in 18 mechanically ventilated patients with septic shock and without arrhythmias. The fluid responsiveness rate was 43.2%. The changes in CDPV were significantly correlated with changes in CI during EEOt (r = 0.51 [0.26-0.71]). A significant, albeit lower correlation, was found for cFT (r = 0.35 [0.1-0.58]). An increase in CI ≥ 5.35% during EEOt predicted fluid responsiveness with 78.9% sensitivity and 91.7% specificity, with an area under the ROC curve (AUROC) of 0.85. An increase in CDPV ≥ 10.5% during an EEOt predicted fluid responsiveness with 96.2% specificity and 53.0% sensitivity with an AUROC of 0.74. Sixty-one percent of CDPV measurements (from - 13.5 to 9.5 cm/s) fell within the gray zone. The cFT changes during EEOt did not accurately predict fluid responsiveness.ConclusionsIn septic shock patients without arrhythmias, an increase in CDPV greater than 10.5% during a 20-s EEOt predicted fluid responsiveness with > 95% specificity. Carotid Doppler combined with EEOt may help optimize preload when invasive hemodynamic monitoring is unavailable. However, the 61% gray zone is a major limitation (retrospectively registered on Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04470856 on July 14, 2020).

Project description:BackgroundIn patients on mechanical ventilation, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) can decrease cardiac output through a decrease in cardiac preload and/or an increase in right ventricular afterload. Increase in central blood volume by fluid administration or passive leg raising (PLR) may reverse these phenomena through an increase in cardiac preload and/or a reopening of closed lung microvessels. We hypothesized that a transient decrease in PEEP (PEEP-test) may be used as a test to detect volume responsiveness.MethodsMechanically ventilated patients with PEEP ≥ 10 cmH2O ("high level") and without spontaneous breathing were prospectively included. Volume responsiveness was assessed by a positive PLR-test, defined as an increase in pulse-contour-derived cardiac index (CI) during PLR ≥ 10%. The PEEP-test consisted in reducing PEEP from the high level to 5 cmH2O for one minute. Pulse-contour-derived CI (PiCCO2) was monitored during PLR and the PEEP-test.ResultsWe enrolled 64 patients among whom 31 were volume responsive. The median increase in CI during PLR was 14% (11-16%). The median PEEP at baseline was 12 (10-15) cmH2O and the PEEP-test resulted in a median decrease in PEEP of 7 (5-10) cmH2O, without difference between volume responsive and unresponsive patients. Among volume responsive patients, the PEEP-test induced a significant increase in CI of 16% (12-20%) (from 2.4 ± 0.7 to 2.9 ± 0.9 L/min/m2, p < 0.0001) in comparison with volume unresponsive patients. In volume unresponsive patients, PLR and the PEEP-test increased CI by 2% (1-5%) and 6% (3-8%), respectively. Volume responsiveness was predicted by an increase in CI > 8.6% during the PEEP-test with a sensitivity of 96.8% (95% confidence interval (95%CI): 83.3-99.9%) and a specificity of 84.9% (95%CI 68.1-94.9%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the PEEP-test for detecting volume responsiveness was 0.94 (95%CI 0.85-0.98) (p < 0.0001 vs. 0.5). Spearman's correlation coefficient between the changes in CI induced by PLR and the PEEP-test was 0.76 (95%CI 0.63-0.85, p < 0.0001).ConclusionsA CI increase > 8.6% during a PEEP-test, which consists in reducing PEEP to 5 cmH2O, reliably detects volume responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with a PEEP ≥ 10 cmH2O. Trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT 04,023,786). Registered July 18, 2019. Ethics Committee approval CPP Est III (N° 2018-A01599-46).

Project description:Several studies have reported on the negative impact of interruptions and distractions on anaesthetic, surgical and team performance in the operating theatre. This study aimed to gain a deeper understanding of these events and why they remain part of everyday clinical practice. We used a mixed methods observational study design. We scored each distractor and interruption according to an established scheme during induction of anaesthesia and the surgical procedure for 58 general surgical cases requiring general anaesthesia. We made field notes of observations, small conversations and meetings. We observed 64 members of staff for 148 hours and recorded 4594 events, giving a mean (SD) event rate of 32.8 (16.3) h-1 . The most frequent events observed during induction of anaesthesia were door movements, which accounted for 869 (63%) events, giving a mean (SD) event rate of 28.1 (14.5) h-1 . These, however, had little impact. The most common events observed during surgery were case-irrelevant verbal communication and smartphone usage, which accounted for 1020 (32%) events, giving a mean (SD) event rate of 9.0 (4.2) h-1 . These occurred mostly in periods of low work-load in a sub-team. Participants ranged from experiencing these events as severe disruption through to a welcome distraction that served to keep healthcare professionals active during low work-load, as well as reinforcing the social connections between colleagues. Mostly, team members showed no awareness of the need for silence among other sub-teams and did not vocalise the need for silence to others. Case-irrelevant verbal communication and smartphone usage may serve a physical and psychological need. The extent to which healthcare professionals may feel disrupted depends on the situation and context. When a team member was disrupted, a resilient team response often lacked. Reducing disruptive social activity might be a powerful strategy to develop a habit of cross-monitoring and mutual help across surgical and anaesthetic sub-teams. Further research is needed on how to bridge cultural borders and develop resilient interprofessional behaviours.

Dataset Information

End-expiratory occlusion test predicts fluid responsiveness in cardiac surgical patients in the operating theatre.

Publications

End-expiratory occlusion test predicts fluid responsiveness in cardiac surgical patients in the operating theatre.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets