Dataset Information

Right ventricular failure in septic shock: characterization, incidence and impact on fluid responsiveness.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Incidence of right ventricular (RV) failure in septic shock patients is not well known, and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) could be of limited value. We report the incidence of RV failure in patients with septic shock, its potential impact on the response to fluids, as well as TAPSE values.

Design

Ancillary study of the HEMOPRED prospective multicenter study includes patients under mechanical ventilation with circulatory failure.

Setting

This is a multicenter intensive care unit study PATIENTS: Two hundred and eighty-two patients with septic shock were analyzed. Patients were classified in three groups based on central venous pressure (CVP) and RV size (RV/LV end-diastolic area, EDA). In group 1, patients had no RV dilatation (RV/LVEDA < 0.6). In group 2, patients had RV dilatation (RV/LVEDA ≥ 0.6) with a CVP < 8 mmHg (no venous congestion). RV failure was defined in group 3 by RV dilatation and a CVP ≥ 8 mmHg. Pulse pressure variation (PPV) was systematically recorded.

Interventions

None.

Measurements and main results

In total, 41% of patients were in group 1, 17% in group 2 and 42% in group 3. A correlation between RV size and CVP was only observed in group 3. Higher RV size was associated with a lower response to passive leg raising for a given PPV. A large overlap of TAPSE values was observed between the 3 groups. 63.5% of patients with RV failure had a normal TAPSE.

Conclusions

RV failure, defined by critical care echocardiography (RV dilatation) and a surrogate of venous congestion (CVP ≥ 8 mmHg), was frequently observed in septic shock patients and negatively associated with response to a fluid challenge despite significant PPV. TAPSE was unable to discriminate patients with or without RV failure.

SUBMITTER: Vieillard-Baron A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7603714 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Fluid boluses are administered to septic shock patients with the purpose of increasing cardiac output as a means to restore tissue perfusion. Unfortunately, fluid therapy has a narrow therapeutic index, and therefore, several approaches to increase safety have been proposed. Fluid responsiveness (FR) assessment might predict which patients will effectively increase cardiac output after a fluid bolus (FR+), thus preventing potentially harmful fluid administration in non-fluid responsive (FR-) patients. However, there are scarce data on the impact of assessing FR on major outcomes. The recent ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial included systematic per-protocol assessment of FR. We performed a post hoc analysis of the study dataset with the aim of exploring the relationship between FR status at baseline, attainment of specific targets, and clinically relevant outcomes. METHODS:ANDROMEDA-SHOCK compared the effect of peripheral perfusion- vs. lactate-targeted resuscitation on 28-day mortality. FR was assessed before each fluid bolus and periodically thereafter. FR+ and FR- subgroups, independent of the original randomization, were compared for fluid administration, achievement of resuscitation targets, vasoactive agents use, and major outcomes such as organ dysfunction and support, length of stay, and 28-day mortality. RESULTS:FR could be determined in 348 patients at baseline. Two hundred and forty-two patients (70%) were categorized as fluid responders. Both groups achieved comparable successful resuscitation targets, although non-fluid responders received less resuscitation fluids (0 [0-500] vs. 1500 [1000-2500] mL; p 0.0001), exhibited less positive fluid balances, but received more vasopressor testing. No difference in clinically relevant outcomes between FR+ and FR- patients was found, including 24-h SOFA score (9 [5-12] vs. 8 [5-11], p = 0.4), need for MV (78% vs. 72%, p = 0.16), need for RRT (18% vs. 21%, p = 0.7), ICU-LOS (6 [3-11] vs. 6 [3-16] days, p = 0.2), and 28-day mortality (40% vs. 36%, p = 0.5). Only thirteen patients remained fluid responsive along the intervention period. CONCLUSIONS:Systematic assessment allowed determination of fluid responsiveness status in more than 80% of patients with early septic shock. Fluid boluses could be stopped in non-fluid responsive patients without any negative impact on clinical relevant outcomes. Our results suggest that fluid resuscitation might be safely guided by FR assessment in septic shock patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03078712. Registered retrospectively on March 13, 2017.