Dataset Information

Prediction of Fluid Responsiveness by the Effect of the Lung Recruitment Maneuver on the Perfusion Index in Mechanically Ventilated Patients During Surgery.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Excessive or inadequate fluid administration during perioperative period affects outcomes. Adjustment of volume expansion (VE) by performing fluid responsiveness (FR) test plays an important role in optimizing fluid infusion. Since changes in stroke volume (SV) during lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) can predict FR, and peripheral perfusion index (PI) is related to SV; therefore, we hypothesized that the changes in PI during LRM (ΔPI_LRM) could predict FR during perioperative period.

Methods

Patients who were scheduled for elective non-laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia with a mechanical ventilator and who required VE (250 mL of crystalloid solution infusion over 10 min) were included. Before VE, LRM was performed by a continuous positive airway pressure of 30 cm H₂O for 30 sec; hemodynamic variables with their changes (PI, obtained by pulse oximetry; and ΔPI_LRM, calculated by using [(PI before LRM-PI after LRM)/PI before LRM]^*100) were obtained before and after LRM. After SV (measured by esophageal doppler) and PI had returned to the baseline values, VE was infused, and the values of these variables were recorded again, before and after VE. Fluid responders (Fluid-Res) were defined by an increase in SV ≥10% after VE. Receiver operating characteristic curves of the baseline values and ΔPI_LRM were constructed and reported as areas under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals, to predict FR.

Results

Of 32 mechanically ventilated adult patients included, 13 (41%) were in the Fluid-Res group. Before VE and LRM, there were no differences in the mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate, SV, and PI between patients in the Fluid-Res and fluid non-responders (Fluid-NonRes) groups. After LRM, SV, MAP, and, PI decreased in both groups, ΔPI_LRM was greater in the Fluid-Res group than in Fluid-NonRes group (55.2 ± 17.8% vs. 35.3 ± 17.3%, p < 0.001, respectively). After VE, only SV and cardiac index increased in the Fluid-Res group. ΔPI_LRM had the highest AUC [0.81 (0.66-0.97)] to predict FR with a cut-off value of 40% (sensitivity 92.3%, specificity 73.7%).

Conclusions

ΔPI_LRM can be applied to predict FR in mechanical ventilated patients during the perioperative period.

SUBMITTER: Morakul S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9247540 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Functional hemodynamic parameters such as stroke volume and pulse pressure variation (SVV and PPV) have been shown to be reliable predictors of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. Today, different minimally- and non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring systems measure functional hemodynamic parameters. Although some of these parameters are described by the same name, they differ in their measurement technique and thus may provide different results. We aimed to test the performance of seven functional hemodynamic parameters simultaneously in the same clinical setting. METHODS:Hemodynamic measurements were done in 30 cardiac surgery patients that were mechanically ventilated. Before and after a standardized intravenous fluid bolus, hemodynamics were measured by the following monitoring systems: PiCCOplus (SVVPiCCO, PPVPiCCO), LiDCOrapid (SVVLiDCO, PPVLiDCO), FloTrac (SVVFloTrac), Philips Intellivue (PPVPhilips) and Masimo pulse oximeter (pleth variability index, PVI). Prediction of fluid responsiveness was tested by calculation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves including a gray zone approach and compared using Fisher's Z-Test. RESULTS:Fluid administration resulted in an increase in cardiac output, while all functional hemodynamic parameters decreased. A wide range of areas under the ROC-curve (AUC's) was observed: AUC-SVVPiCCO = 0.91, AUC-PPVPiCCO = 0.88, AUC-SVVLiDCO = 0.78, AUC-PPVLiDCO = 0.89, AUC-SVVFloTrac = 0.87, AUC-PPVPhilips = 0.92 and AUC-PVI = 0.68. Optimal threshold values for prediction of fluid responsiveness ranged between 9.5 and 17.5%. Lowest threshold values were observed for SVVLiDCO, highest for PVI. CONCLUSION:All functional hemodynamic parameters tested except for PVI showed that their use allows a reliable identification of potential fluid responders. PVI however, may not be suitable after cardiac surgery to predict fluid responsiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT02571465 , registered on October 7th, 2015 (retrospectively registered).

Project description:IntroductionAlthough several parameters have been proposed to predict the hemodynamic response to fluid expansion in critically ill patients, most of them are invasive or require the use of special monitoring devices. The aim of this study is to determine whether noninvasive evaluation of respiratory variation of brachial artery peak velocity flow measured using Doppler ultrasound could predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients.MethodsWe conducted a prospective clinical research in a 17-bed multidisciplinary ICU and included 38 mechanically ventilated patients for whom fluid administration was planned due to the presence of acute circulatory failure. Volume expansion (VE) was performed with 500 mL of a synthetic colloid. Patients were classified as responders if stroke volume index (SVi) increased >or= 15% after VE. The respiratory variation in Vpeakbrach (DeltaVpeakbrach) was calculated as the difference between maximum and minimum values of Vpeakbrach over a single respiratory cycle, divided by the mean of the two values and expressed as a percentage. Radial arterial pressure variation (DeltaPPrad) and stroke volume variation measured using the FloTrac/Vigileo system (DeltaSVVigileo), were also calculated.ResultsVE increased SVi by >or= 15% in 19 patients (responders). At baseline, DeltaVpeakbrach, DeltaPPrad and DeltaSVVigileo were significantly higher in responder than nonresponder patients [14 vs 8%; 18 vs. 5%; 13 vs 8%; P < 0.0001, respectively). A DeltaVpeakbrach value >10% predicted fluid responsiveness with a sensitivity of 74% and a specificity of 95%. A DeltaPPrad value >10% and a DeltaSVVigileo >11% predicted volume responsiveness with a sensitivity of 95% and 79%, and a specificity of 95% and 89%, respectively.ConclusionsRespiratory variations in brachial artery peak velocity could be a feasible tool for the noninvasive assessment of fluid responsiveness in patients with mechanical ventilatory support and acute circulatory failure.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT00890071.

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:BackgroundA sequential change in body position from supine-to-both lateral positions under constant ventilatory settings could be used as a postural recruitment maneuver in case of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), provided that sufficient positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) prevents derecruitment. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and physiological effects of a sequential postural recruitment maneuver in early mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients.MethodsA cohort of 15 patients receiving lung-protective mechanical ventilation in volume-controlled with PEEP based on recruitability were prospectively enrolled and evaluated in five sequentially applied positions for 30 min each: Supine-baseline; Lateral-1st side; 2nd Supine; Lateral-2nd side; Supine-final. PEEP level was selected using the recruitment-to-inflation ratio (R/I ratio) based on which patients received PEEP 12 cmH2O for R/I ratio ≤ 0.5 or PEEP 15 cmH2O for R/I ratio > 0.5. At the end of each period, we measured respiratory mechanics, arterial blood gases, lung ultrasound aeration, end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI), and regional distribution of ventilation and perfusion using electric impedance tomography (EIT).ResultsComparing supine baseline and final, respiratory compliance (29 ± 9 vs 32 ± 8 mL/cmH2O; p < 0.01) and PaO2/FIO2 ratio (138 ± 36 vs 164 ± 46 mmHg; p < 0.01) increased, while driving pressure (13 ± 2 vs 11 ± 2 cmH2O; p < 0.01) and lung ultrasound consolidation score decreased [5 (4-5) vs 2 (1-4); p < 0.01]. EELI decreased ventrally (218 ± 205 mL; p < 0.01) and increased dorsally (192 ± 475 mL; p = 0.02), while regional compliance increased in both ventral (11.5 ± 0.7 vs 12.9 ± 0.8 mL/cmH2O; p < 0.01) and dorsal regions (17.1 ± 1.8 vs 18.8 ± 1.8 mL/cmH2O; p < 0.01). Dorsal distribution of perfusion increased (64.8 ± 7.3% vs 66.3 ± 7.2%; p = 0.01).ConclusionsWithout increasing airway pressure, a sequential postural recruitment maneuver improves global and regional respiratory mechanics and gas exchange along with a redistribution of EELI from ventral to dorsal lung areas and less consolidation. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04475068. Registered 17 July 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04475068.

Project description:BackgroundIn patients undergoing high-risk surgery, it is recommended to titrate fluid administration using stroke volume or a dynamic variable of fluid responsiveness (FR). However, this strategy usually requires the use of a hemodynamic monitor and/or an arterial catheter. Recently, it has been shown that variations of central venous pressure (ΔCVP) during an alveolar recruitment maneuver (ARM) can predict FR and that there is a correlation between CVP and peripheral venous pressure (PVP). This prospective study tested the hypothesis that variations of PVP (ΔPVP) induced by an ARM could predict FR.MethodsWe studied 60 consecutive patients scheduled for high-risk abdominal surgery, excluding those with preoperative cardiac arrhythmias or right ventricular dysfunction. All patients had a peripheral venous catheter, a central venous catheter and a radial arterial catheter linked to a pulse contour monitoring device. PVP was always measured via an 18-gauge catheter inserted at the antecubital fossa. Then an ARM consisting of a standardized gas insufflation to reach a plateau of 30 cmH2O for 30 s was performed before skin incision. Invasive mean arterial pressure (MAP), pulse pressure, heart rate, CVP, PVP, pulse pressure variation (PPV), and stroke volume index (SVI) were recorded before ARM (T1), at the end of ARM (T2), before volume expansion (T3), and one minute after volume expansion (T4). Receiver-operating curves (ROC) analysis with the corresponding grey zone approach were performed to assess the ability of ∆PVP (index test) to predict FR, defined as an ≥ 10% increase in SVI following the administration of a 4 ml/kg balanced crystalloid solution over 5 min.Results∆PVP during ARM predicted FR with an area under the ROC curve of 0.76 (95%CI, 0.63 to 0.86). The optimal threshold determined by the Youden Index was a ∆PVP value of 5 mmHg (95%CI, 4 to 6) with a sensitivity of 66% (95%CI, 47 to 81) and a specificity of 82% (95%CI, 63 to 94). The AUC's for predicting FR were not different between ΔPVP, ΔCVP, and PPV.ConclusionDuring high-risk abdominal surgery, ∆PVP induced by an ARM can moderately predict FR. Nevertheless, other hemodynamic variables did not perform better.

Project description:IntroductionDynamic predictors of fluid responsiveness have shown good performance in mechanically ventilated patients at tidal volumes (Vt) > 8 mL kg-1. Nevertheless, most critically ill conditions demand lower Vt. We sought to evaluate the operative performance of several predictors of fluid responsiveness at Vt ≤ 8 mL kg-1 by using meta-regression and subgroup analyses.MethodsA sensitive search was conducted in the Embase and MEDLINE databases. We searched for studies prospectively assessing the operative performance of pulse pressure variation (PPV), stroke volume variation (SVV), end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT), passive leg raising (PLR), inferior vena cava respiratory variability (Δ-IVC), mini-fluid challenge (m-FC), and tidal volume challenge (VtC), to predict fluid responsiveness in adult patients mechanically ventilated at Vt ≤ 8 ml kg-1, without respiratory effort and arrhythmias, published between 1999 and 2020. Operative performance was assessed using hierarchical and bivariate analyses, while subgroup analysis was used to evaluate variations in their operative performance and sources of heterogeneity. A sensitivity analysis based on the methodological quality of the studies included (QUADAS-2) was also performed.ResultsA total of 33 studies involving 1,352 patients were included for analysis. Areas under the curve (AUC) values for predictors of fluid responsiveness were: for PPV = 0.82, Δ-IVC = 0.86, SVV = 0.90, m-FC = 0.84, PLR = 0.84, EEOT = 0.92, and VtC = 0.92. According to subgroup analyses, variations in methods to measure cardiac output and in turn, to classify patients as responders or non-responders significantly influence the performance of PPV and SVV (p < 0.05). Operative performance of PPV was also significantly affected by the compliance of the respiratory system (p = 0.05), while type of patient (p < 0.01) and thresholds used to determine responsiveness significantly affected the predictability of SVV (p = 0.05). Similarly, volume of fluids infused to determine variation in cardiac output, significantly affected the performance of SVV (p = 0.01) and PLR (p < 0.01). Sensitivity analysis showed no variations in operative performance of PPV (p = 0.39), SVV (p = 0.23) and EEOT (p = 0.15).ConclusionMost predictors of fluid responsiveness reliably predict the response of cardiac output to volume expansion in adult patients mechanically ventilated at tidal volumes ≤ 8 ml kg-1. Nevertheless, technical and clinical variables might clearly influence on their operative performance.

Project description:IntroductionDeep sedation is associated with adverse patient outcomes. We recently described a novel sedation-monitoring technology, the Responsiveness Index (RI), which quantifies patient arousal using processed frontal facial EMG data. We explored the potential effectiveness and safety of continuous RI monitoring during early intensive care unit (ICU) care as a nurse decision-support tool.MethodsIn a parallel-group controlled single centre proof of concept trial, patients requiring mechanical ventilation and sedation were randomized via sequential sealed envelopes following ICU admission. Control group patients received hourly clinical sedation assessment and daily sedation holds; the RI monitor was connected but data were concealed from clinical staff. The intervention group received control group care, but RI monitoring was visible and nurses were asked to adjust sedation to maintain patients with an RI>20 whenever possible. Traffic-light colour coding (RI<20, Red; 20-40, Amber; >40, Green) simplified decision-making. The intervention lasted up to 48 hours. Sixteen nurses were interviewed to explore their views of the novel technology.ResultsWe analysed 74 patients treated per protocol (36 intervention; 38 control). The proportion of patients with RI<20 was identical at the start of monitoring (54% both groups). Overall, the proportion of time with RI<20 trended to lower values for the intervention group (median 16% (1-3rd quartile 8-30%) versus 33% (10-54%); P = 0.08); sedation and analgesic use was similar. A post hoc analysis restricted to patients with RI<20 when monitoring started, found intervention patients spent less time with low RI value (16% (11-45%) versus 51% (33-72%); P = 0.02), cumulative propofol use trended to lower values (median 1090 mg versus 2390 mg; P = 0.14), and cumulative alfentanil use was lower (21.2 mg versus 32.3 mg; P = 0.01). RASS scores were similar for both groups. Sedation related adverse event rates were similar (7/36 versus 5/38). Similar proportions of patients had sedation holds (83% versus 87 %) and were extubated (47% versus 44%) during the intervention period. Nurses valued the objective visible data trends and simple colour prompts, and found RI monitoring a useful adjunct to existing practice.ConclusionsRI monitoring was safe and acceptable. Data suggested potential to modify sedation decision-making. Larger trials are justified to explore effects on patient-centred outcomes.Trial registrationNCT01361230 (registered April 19, 2010).