End-expiratory Occlusion Test and Lung Recruitment Maneuver to Assess Fluid responsiVeness In Surgical Patients

End-expiratory Occlusion Test and Lung Recruitment Maneuver to Assess Fluid responsiVeness In Surgical Patients: an Open-label, Randomized Clinical Trial

Sponsors

Lead Sponsor: Humanitas Clinical and Research Center

Collaborator: Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Maggiore della Carita

Source Humanitas Clinical and Research Center
Brief Summary

The functional hemodynamic test (FHT) called passive leg raising (PLR) has been successfully used for assessing the fluid responsiveness in ICU patients since 2009 and its reliability has been confirmed by three large meta-analyses. However, the PLR is not usually practicable in the OR.

A lot of different FHTs have been proposed, as alternative to the PLR, in ICU and, more recently, OR. These tests could be basically subdivided in two groups. A subgroup of FHTs is based on sudden and brief variations of the mechanical ventilation to induce a change in right ventricle preload and/or after load and, as consequence, of left ventricle SV. A second subgroup aims at testing the increase in SV after the rapid administration of a small aliquot of the predefined FC.

Among the first group, the end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) and the lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) have been previously successfully tested in surgical patients. The EEOT consists of the interruption of the mechanical ventilation for 30 seconds, whereas the LRM consists in the increase in the peak inspiratory pressure up to 30 cmH20 for 30 seconds and in the assessment of the changes in the SV after the maneuvers. These tests are safe and can be easily applicable during the surgery to predict fluid responsiveness and optimize the fluid therapy.

The primary aim of the present study is to compare the reliability of EEOT and LRM in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing general surgery.

Detailed Description

Targeted fluid therapy has received increasing attention in the management of patients showing acute circulatory failure in both intensive care unit (ICU) and operating room (OR), aiming at preventing both inadequate tissue blood flow and fluid overload [1]. In fact, unnecessary fluid administration can increase morbidity and mortality and length of hospital stay of critically ill and surgical patients [2-10].

Since the only physiological reason to give a fluid challenge (FC) is to increase the stroke volume (SV) [11-13] and this effect is obtained only in about 50% of ICU and OR patients [14, 15], a vast literature investigated the possibility of predict this effect before FC administration, but the issue remains extremely challenging [1, 13, 16-18]. Bedside clinical signs and pressure and static volumetric static variables, do not predict fluid responsiveness [17]. Moreover, several physiological factors affect the reliability of the ventilator-induced dynamic changes in pulse pressure and stroke volume [pulse pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV), respectively], and their echographic surrogates, in a significant number of ICU and OR patients [19-22].

To overcome these limitations, the functional hemodynamic assessment (i.e. the assessment of the dynamic interactions of hemodynamic variables in response to a defined perturbation), of fluid responsiveness has gained in popularity [17, 18, 23]. A functional hemodynamic test (FHT) consist in a manoeuvre determining a sudden change in cardiac function and/or heart lung interaction, affecting the hemodynamics of fluid responders and non-responders to a different extent [17, 18, 23].

The FHT called passive leg raising (PLR) has been successfully used for assessing the fluid responsiveness in ICU patients since 2009 [24] and its reliability has been confirmed by three large meta-analyses [25-27]. However, the PLR is not usually practicable in the OR.

A lot of different FHTs have been proposed, as alternative to the PLR, in ICU and, more recently, OR. These tests could be basically subdivided in two groups. A subgroup of FHTs is based on sudden and brief variations of the mechanical ventilation to induce a change in right ventricle preload and/or after load and, as consequence, of left ventricle SV [24, 28]. A second subgroup aims at testing the increase in SV after the rapid administration of a small aliquot of the predefined FC [29, 30].

Among the first group, the end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) and the lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) have been previously successfully tested in surgical patients [31-33]. The EEOT consists of the interruption of the mechanical ventilation for 30 seconds, whereas the LRM consists in the increase in the peak inspiratory pressure up to 30 cmH20 for 30 seconds and in the assessment of the changes in the SV after the maneuvers. These tests are safe and can be easily applicable during the surgery to predict fluid responsiveness and optimize the fluid therapy.

The primary aim of the present study is to compare the reliability of EEOT and LRM in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing general surgery.

(for Bibliography please refer to the original protocol)

Overall Status Not yet recruiting
Start Date May 1, 2020
Completion Date December 31, 2020
Primary Completion Date December 31, 2020
Phase N/A
Study Type Interventional
Primary Outcome
Measure Time Frame
AUC difference 10 minutes after fluid challenge administration
Secondary Outcome
Measure Time Frame
Sensitivity and Specificity 10 minutes after fluid challenge administration
Enrollment 60
Condition
Intervention

Intervention Type: Diagnostic Test

Intervention Name: End-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT)

Description: The EEOT is performed by interrupting the mechanical ventilation for 30 seconds, by using and end-expiratory hold on the ventilator.

Arm Group Label: Treatment - hemodynamic tests

Intervention Type: Diagnostic Test

Intervention Name: Lung recruitment manovre (LRM)

Description: The LRM is performed by using a single act of mechanical ventilation in pressure-controlled mode at 30 cmH20 for 30 seconds

Arm Group Label: Treatment - hemodynamic tests

Eligibility

Criteria:

Inclusion Criteria:

1. Adult patients aged ≥ 18 years;

2. Scheduled for elective supine abdominal surgery and requiring invasive arterial monitoring;

3. Glasgow coma scale 15 at recruitment. All the patients must be able to sign an informed consent at the admission.

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Any recurrent cardiac arrhythmias;

2. Reduced left (ejection fraction <30%) or right (systolic peak velocity of tricuspid annular motion <0.17 m/s) ventricular systolic function;

3. Chronic use beta-blocking agents.

4. History of pneumothorax.

5. BMI > 40

Gender: All

Minimum Age: 18 Years

Maximum Age: N/A

Healthy Volunteers: No

Location
Facility: Humanitas Research Hospital
Location Countries

Italy

Verification Date

February 2020

Responsible Party

Type: Principal Investigator

Investigator Affiliation: Humanitas Clinical and Research Center

Investigator Full Name: Antonio Messina

Investigator Title: ICU senior consultant

Keywords
Has Expanded Access No
Number Of Arms 1
Arm Group

Label: Treatment - hemodynamic tests

Type: Experimental

Description: Treatment - hemodynamic tests: The EEOT is performed by interrupting the mechanical ventilation for 30 seconds, by using and end-expiratory hold on the ventilator. The LRM is performed by using a single act of mechanical ventilation in pressure-controlled mode at 30 cmH20 for 30 seconds

Acronym ELVIS
Patient Data Undecided
Study Design Info

Allocation: N/A

Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment

Intervention Model Description: The study protocol is started during a period of intraoperative hemodynamic stability, as previously defined (change in mean arterial pressure of less than 10% during 5 minutes). The study protocol is the following: 1) a set of measurements is recorded (T0) at a baseline ventilation of 7 ml/Kg and then the EEOT is performed by using the software function, "expiratory hold", to interrupt mechanical ventilation; 2) after one minute a set of measurements was recorded (T1); 3) the LRM is then performed; 4) after one minute another set of measurements is recorded (T2) and then a fluid challenge of 4 mL/Kg of crystalloid solution is infused over 10 minutes. The attending anesthetist is allowed to interrupt the protocol at any stage for either hemodynamic instability or any other adverse effects requiring urgent treatment. The sequence of application of EEOT and LRM on the same patient (EEOT_LRM or LRM_EEOT) is randomly generated.

Primary Purpose: Diagnostic

Masking: None (Open Label)

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov