Clinical validation of a computerized algorithm to determine mean systemic filling pressure

Loek P B Meijs, Joris van Houte, Bente C M Conjaerts, Alexander J G H Bindels, Arthur Bouwman, Saskia Houterman, Jan Bakker, Loek P B Meijs, Joris van Houte, Bente C M Conjaerts, Alexander J G H Bindels, Arthur Bouwman, Saskia Houterman, Jan Bakker

Abstract

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).

Keywords: Cardiac output; Inspiratory hold; Mean systemic filling pressure; Right atrial pressure; Venous return.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Example of venous return curve. Data points plotted represent consecutive cardiac index (CI) (y-axis) and corresponding right atrial pressure (RAP; x-axis) values during 12 s inspiratory hold maneuvers. With each increment of airway plateau pressure (Pplateau), CI (or venous return; VR; as in steady state conditions VR determines CI) will decrease, whereas RAP will increase. Pms-Insp (Pms calculated after inspiratory hold maneuver) is calculated by extrapolation of the VR-curve with linear regression (least squares method). The intersect of the VR-curve with the x-axis (at zero CI or VR) represents true Pms-Insp
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Intraclass correlation of Pmsa and Pms-Insp. Association between realtime Pms calculated by computerized algorithm (Pmsa) and Pms calculated after inspiratory hold maneuver (Pms-Insp). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) is presented in the lower right corner of the scatter plot (95% CI 0.72–0.96, p ≤ 0.01)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Bland-Altman analysis of Pmsa and Pms-Insp. Bland-Altman analysis showing the comparison between measurements of realtime Pms calculated by computerized algorithm (Pmsa; test-method) and Pms calculated from venous return curves during inspiratory hold maneuvers (Pms-Insp; reference method). The dashed horizontal line represents the mean of the differences (bias) which was found to be −0.502 ± 1.90 mmHg, p = 0.277. The upper and lower dotted horizontal lines represent the 95% limits of agreement (LOA) which are −4.22 and 3.22 mmHg

References

    1. Guyton AC, Abernathy B, Langston JB, Kaufmann BN, Fairchild HM. Relative importance of venous and arterial resistances in controlling venous return and cardiac output. Am J Phys. 1959;196(5):1008–1014. doi: 10.1152/ajplegacy.1959.196.5.1008.
    1. Guyton AC, Lindsey AW, Kaufmann BN. Effect of mean circulatory filling pressure and other peripheral circulatory factors on cardiac output. Am J Phys. 1955;180(3):463–468. doi: 10.1152/ajplegacy.1955.180.3.463.
    1. Guyton AC, Polizo D, Armstrong GG. Mean circulatory filling pressure measured immediately after cessation of heart pumping. Am J Phys. 1954;179(2):261–267. doi: 10.1152/ajplegacy.1954.179.2.261.
    1. Guyton AC, Lindsey AW, Abernathy B, Richardson T. Venous return at various right atrial pressures and the normal venous return curve. Am J Phys. 1957;189(3):609–615. doi: 10.1152/ajplegacy.1957.189.3.609.
    1. Rothe CF. Mean circulatory filling pressure: its meaning and measurement. J Appl Physiol (1985) 1993;74(2):499–509. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1993.74.2.499.
    1. Gupta K, Sondergaard S, Parkin G, Leaning M, Aneman A. Applying mean systemic filling pressure to assess the response to fluid boluses in cardiac post-surgical patients. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(2):265–272. doi: 10.1007/s00134-014-3611-2.
    1. Sondergaard S, Wall P, Cocks K, Parkin WG, Leaning MS. High concordance between expert anaesthetists' actions and advice of decision support system in achieving oxygen delivery targets in high-risk surgery patients. Br J Anaesth. 2012;108(6):966–972. doi: 10.1093/bja/aes037.
    1. Guyton AC. Determination of cardiac output by equating venous return curves with cardiac response curves. Physiol Rev. 1955;35(1):123–129. doi: 10.1152/physrev.1955.35.1.123.
    1. Guyton AC. The venous system and its role in the circulation. Mod Concepts Cardiovasc Dis. 1958;27(10):483–487.
    1. Guyton AC, Greganti FP. A physiologic reference point for measuring circulatory pressures in the dog; particularly venous pressure. Am J Phys. 1956;185(1):137–141. doi: 10.1152/ajplegacy.1956.185.1.137.
    1. Pinsky MR. Instantaneous venous return curves in an intact canine preparation. J Appl Physiol Respir Environ Exerc Physiol. 1984;56(3):765–771. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1984.56.3.765.
    1. Versprille A, Jansen JR. Mean systemic filling pressure as a characteristic pressure for venous return. Pflugers Arch. 1985;405(3):226–233. doi: 10.1007/bf00582565.
    1. Maas JJ, Pinsky MR, Geerts BF, de Wilde RB, Jansen JR. Estimation of mean systemic filling pressure in postoperative cardiac surgery patients with three methods. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38(9):1452–1460. doi: 10.1007/s00134-012-2586-0.
    1. Maas JJ, Pinsky MR, Aarts LP, Jansen JR. Bedside assessment of total systemic vascular compliance, stressed volume, and cardiac function curves in intensive care unit patients. Anesth Analg. 2012;115(4):880–887. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e31825fb01d.
    1. Maas JJ, Geerts BF, van den Berg PC, Pinsky MR, Jansen JR. Assessment of venous return curve and mean systemic filling pressure in postoperative cardiac surgery patients. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(3):912–918. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181961481.
    1. Maas JJ, Geerts BF, Jansen JR. Evaluation of mean systemic filling pressure from pulse contour cardiac output and central venous pressure. J Clin Monit Comput. 2011;25(3):193–201. doi: 10.1007/s10877-011-9294-0.
    1. Parkin G, Wright C, Bellomo R, Boyce N. Use of a mean systemic filling pressure analogue during the closed-loop control of fluid replacement in continuous hemodiafiltration. J Crit Care. 1994;9(2):124–133. doi: 10.1016/0883-9441(94)90023-X.
    1. Parkin WG. Volume state control—a new approach. Crit Care Resusc. 1999;1(3):311–321.
    1. Parkin WG, Leaning MS. Therapeutic control of the circulation. J Clin Monit Comput. 2008;22(6):391–400. doi: 10.1007/s10877-008-9147-7.
    1. Sondergaard S, Parkin G, Aneman A. Central venous pressure: soon an outcome-associated matter. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2016;29(2):179–185. doi: 10.1097/ACO.0000000000000305.
    1. Sondergaard S, Parkin G, Aneman A. Central venous pressure: we need to bring clinical use into physiological context. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2015;59(5):552–560. doi: 10.1111/aas.12490.
    1. Cooke K, Sharvill R, Sondergaard S, Aneman A. Volume responsiveness assessed by passive leg raising and a fluid challenge: a critical review focused on mean systemic filling pressure. Anaesthesia. 2018;73(3):313–322. doi: 10.1111/anae.14162.
    1. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig L, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC, Kressel HY, Rifai N, Golub RM, Altman DG, Hooft L, Korevaar DA, Cohen JF, Group S STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ. 2015;351:h5527. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h5527.
    1. Godje O, Hoke K, Goetz AE, Felbinger TW, Reuter DA, Reichart B, Friedl R, Hannekum A, Pfeiffer UJ. Reliability of a new algorithm for continuous cardiac output determination by pulse-contour analysis during hemodynamic instability. Crit Care Med. 2002;30(1):52–58. doi: 10.1097/00003246-200201000-00008.
    1. Pellegrino VA, Mudaliar Y, Gopalakrishnan M, Horton MD, Killick CJ, Parkin WG, Playford HR, Raper RF. Computer based haemodynamic guidance system is effective and safe in management of postoperative cardiac surgery patients. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2011;39(2):191–201. doi: 10.1177/0310057X1103900207.
    1. Wijnberge M, Sindhunata DP, Pinsky MR, Vlaar AP, Ouweneel E, Jansen JR, Veelo DP, Geerts BF. Estimating mean circulatory filling pressure in clinical practice: a systematic review comparing three bedside methods in the critically ill. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s13613-018-0418-2.
    1. Cecconi M, Aya HD, Geisen M, Ebm C, Fletcher N, Grounds RM, Rhodes A. Changes in the mean systemic filling pressure during a fluid challenge in postsurgical intensive care patients. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(7):1299–1305. doi: 10.1007/s00134-013-2928-6.
    1. Rangappa R, Sondergaard S, Aneman A. Improved consistency in interpretation and management of cardiovascular variables by intensive care staff using a computerised decision-support system. Crit Care Resusc. 2014;16(1):48–53.
    1. Repesse X, Charron C, Fink J, Beauchet A, Deleu F, Slama M, Belliard G, Vieillard-Baron A. Value and determinants of the mean systemic filling pressure in critically ill patients. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2015;309(5):H1003–H1007. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00413.2015.
    1. de Wit F, van Vliet AL, de Wilde RB, Jansen JR, Vuyk J, Aarts LP, de Jonge E, Veelo DP, Geerts BF. The effect of propofol on haemodynamics: cardiac output, venous return, mean systemic filling pressure, and vascular resistances. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116(6):784–789. doi: 10.1093/bja/aew126.
    1. Berger D, Moller PW, Weber A, Bloch A, Bloechlinger S, Haenggi M, Sondergaard S, Jakob SM, Magder S, Takala J. Effect of PEEP, blood volume, and inspiratory hold maneuvers on venous return. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2016;311(3):H794–H806. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00931.2015.
    1. Repesse X, Charron C, Geri G, Aubry A, Paternot A, Maizel J, Slama M, Vieillard-Baron A. Impact of positive pressure ventilation on mean systemic filling pressure in critically ill patients after death. J Appl Physiol (1985) 2017;122(6):1373–1378. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00958.2016.
    1. Maas JJ, Pinsky MR, de Wilde RB, de Jonge E, Jansen JR. Cardiac output response to norepinephrine in postoperative cardiac surgery patients: interpretation with venous return and cardiac function curves. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(1):143–150. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318265ea64.
    1. Persichini R, Silva S, Teboul JL, Jozwiak M, Chemla D, Richard C, Monnet X. Effects of norepinephrine on mean systemic pressure and venous return in human septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(12):3146–3153. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318260c6c3.
    1. Pinsky MR, Matuschak G.M. (1986) Cardiovascular determinants of the hemodynamic response to acute endotoxemia in the dog. J Crit Care 1 (1):18–31.
    1. Lee JM, Ogundele O, Pike F, Pinsky MR. Effect of acute endotoxemia on analog estimates of mean systemic pressure. J Crit Care. 2013;28(5):880. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2013.04.007.
    1. Werner-Moller P, Sondergaard S, Jakob SM, Takala J, Berger D. Effect of volume status on the estimation of mean systemic filling pressure. J Appl Physiol (1985) 2019;126(6):1503–1513. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00897.2018.
    1. Michard F, Teboul JL. Using heart-lung interactions to assess fluid responsiveness during mechanical ventilation. Crit Care. 2000;4(5):282–289. doi: 10.1186/cc710.
    1. Bindels AJ, van der Hoeven JG, Graafland AD, de Koning J, Meinders AE. Relationships between volume and pressure measurements and stroke volume in critically ill patients. Crit Care. 2000;4(3):193–199. doi: 10.1186/cc693.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe