Predictors of fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients mechanically ventilated at low tidal volumes: systematic review and meta-analysis

Jorge Iván Alvarado Sánchez, Juan Daniel Caicedo Ruiz, Juan José Diaztagle Fernández, William Fernando Amaya Zuñiga, Gustavo Adolfo Ospina-Tascón, Luis Eduardo Cruz Martínez, Jorge Iván Alvarado Sánchez, Juan Daniel Caicedo Ruiz, Juan José Diaztagle Fernández, William Fernando Amaya Zuñiga, Gustavo Adolfo Ospina-Tascón, Luis Eduardo Cruz Martínez

Abstract

Introduction: Dynamic 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.

Methods: A 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.

Results: A 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).

Conclusion: Most 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.

Keywords: Critical care; Critical illness; End-expiratory occlusion test; Fluid responsiveness; Inferior vena cava respiratory variability; Mini-fluid challenge; Passive leg raising; Pulse pressure variation; Stroke volume variation; Tidal volume challenge.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declared that they do not have a conflicting interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study selection
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Summary ROC curve for the first group of predictors of fluid responsiveness. SVV, stroke volume variation; PPV, pulse pressure variation; VtC, tidal volume challenge. Closed curve: 95% confidence region
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Summary ROC curve for the second group of predictors of fluid responsiveness. IVC, inferior vena cava respiratory variability. Closed curve: 95% confidence region
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Summary ROC curve for the third group of predictors of fluid responsiveness. EEOT, end-expiratory occlusion test; m-FC, mini-fluid challenge; PLR, passive leg raising. Closed curve: 95% confidence region
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Bubble plot for meta-regression of pulse pressure variation with lung compliance pulmonary as a continuous covariate. The number of the point is the reference number of each study

References

    1. Sakr Y, Rubatto Birri PN, Kotfis K, Nanchal R, Shah B, Kluge S, et al. Higher fluid balance increases the risk of death from sepsis: results from a large international audit∗. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(3):386–394. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002189.
    1. Alvarado Sánchez JI, Amaya Zúñiga WF, Monge García MI. Predictors to intravenous fluid responsiveness. J Intensive Care Med. 2018;33(4):227–240. doi: 10.1177/0885066617709434.
    1. Cavallaro F, Sandroni C, Antonelli M. Functional hemodynamic monitoring and dynamic indices of fluid responsiveness. Minerva Anestesiol. 2008;74(4):123–135.
    1. De Backer D, Heenen S, Piagnerelli M, Koch M, Vincent J-L. Pulse pressure variations to predict fluid responsiveness: influence of tidal volume. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31(4):517–523. doi: 10.1007/s00134-005-2586-4.
    1. Reuter D, Bayerlein J, Goepfert MSG, Weis FC, Kilger E, Lamm P, et al. Influence of tidal volume on left ventricular stroke volume variation measured by pulse contour analysis in mechanically ventilated patients. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29(3):476–480. doi: 10.1007/s00134-003-1649-7.
    1. De Backer D, Taccone FS, Holsten R, Ibrahimi F, Vincent J-L. Influence of respiratory rate on stroke volume variation in mechanically ventilated patients. Anesthesiology. 2009;110(5):1092–1097. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31819db2a1.
    1. Monnet X, Bleibtreu A, Dres M, Gharbi R, Richard C, Teboul J. Passive leg-raising and end-expiratory occlusion tests perform better than pulse pressure variation in patients with low respiratory system compliance. Crit Care Med. 2012;40:152–157. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31822f08d7.
    1. Muller L, Louart G, Bousquet P-J, Candela D, Zoric L, de La Coussaye J-E, et al. The influence of the airway driving pressure on pulsed pressure variation as a predictor of fluid responsiveness. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(3):496–503. doi: 10.1007/s00134-009-1686-y.
    1. Marik PE, Cavallazzi R, Vasu T, Hirani A. Dynamic changes in arterial waveform derived variables and fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review of the literature. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(9):2642–2647. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a590da.
    1. Yang X, Du B. Does pulse pressure variation predict fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2014;18(6):1–13. doi: 10.1186/s13054-014-0650-6.
    1. Yao B, Liu JY, Sun YB. Respiratory variation in peripheral arterial blood flow peak velocity to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Anesthesiol. 2018;18:168. doi: 10.1186/s12871-018-0635-0.
    1. Alvarado Sánchez JI, Caicedo Ruiz JD, Diaztagle Fernández JJ, Ospina-Tascón GA, Cruz Martínez LE. Use of pulse pressure variation as predictor of fluid responsiveness in patients ventilated with low tidal volume: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Med Insights Circ Respir Pulm Med. 2020;14:8. doi: 10.1177/1179548420901518.
    1. Zhang Z, Lu B, Sheng X, Jin N. Accuracy of stroke volume variation in predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Anesth. 2011;25(6):904–916. doi: 10.1007/s00540-011-1217-1.
    1. Chaves RC, Corrêa TD, Neto AS, Bravim B, Cordioli RL, Moreira FT, et al. Assessment of fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients: a systematic review of literature. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s13613-018-0365-y.
    1. Messina A, Dell’Anna A, Baggiani M, Torrini F, Maresca GM, Bennett V, et al. Functional hemodynamic tests: A systematic review and a metanalysis on the reliability of the end-expiratory occlusion test and of the mini-fluid challenge in predicting fluid responsiveness. Crit Care. 2019;23:264. doi: 10.1186/s13054-019-2545-z.
    1. Monnet X, Marik P, Teboul JL. Passive leg raising for predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(12):1935–1947. doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-4134-1.
    1. Hong J-Q, He H-F, Chen Z-Y, Du Z-S, Liu W-F, Weng P-Q, et al. Comparison of stroke volume variation with pulse pressure variation as a diagnostic indicator of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Saudi Med J. 2014;35(3):261–268.
    1. Cavallaro F, Sandroni C, Marano C, La TG, Mannocci A, De WC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of passive leg raising for prediction of fluid responsiveness in adults : systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36:1475–1483. doi: 10.1007/s00134-010-1929-y.
    1. Long E, Oakley E, Duke T, Babl FE. Does respiratory variation in inferior vena cava diameter predict fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Shock. 2017;47(5):550–559. doi: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000000801.
    1. Zhang Z, Xu X, Ye S, Xu L. Ultrasonographic measurement of the respiratory variation in the inferior vena cava diameter is predictive of fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2014;40(5):845–853. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2013.12.010.
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1–34. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006.
    1. Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–536. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009.
    1. Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA. A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med. 2001;20(19):2865–2884. doi: 10.1002/sim.942.
    1. Fischer JE, Bachmann LM, Jaeschke R. A readers’ guide to the interpretation of diagnostic test properties: clinical example of sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29(7):1043–1051. doi: 10.1007/s00134-003-1761-8.
    1. Huedo-Medina TB, Sánchez-Meca J, Marín-Martínez F, Botella J. Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I 2 Index? Psychol Methods. 2006;11(2):193–206. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193.
    1. Auler JO, Galas F, Hajjar L, Santos L, Carvalho T, Michard F. Online monitoring of pulse pressure variation to guide fluid therapy after cardiac surgery. Anesth Analg. 2008;106(4):1201–1206. doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000287664.03547.c6.
    1. Huang C-C, Fu J-Y, Hu H-C, Kao K-C, Chen N-H, Hsieh M-J, et al. Prediction of fluid responsiveness in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients ventilated with low tidal volume and high positive end-expiratory pressure. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(10):2810–2816. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318186b74e.
    1. Vistisen ST, Struijk JJ, Larsson A. Automated pre-ejection period variation indexed to tidal volume predicts fluid responsiveness after cardiac surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009;53(4):534–542. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01893.x.
    1. Vallée F, Richard JCM, Mari A, Gallas T, Arsac E, Verlaan PS, et al. Pulse pressure variations adjusted by alveolar driving pressure to assess fluid responsiveness. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35(6):1004–1010. doi: 10.1007/s00134-009-1478-4.
    1. Moretti R, Pizzi B. Inferior vena cava distensibility as a predictor of fluid responsiveness in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neurocrit Care. 2010;13:3–9. doi: 10.1007/s12028-010-9356-z.
    1. Lakhal K, Ehrmann S, Benzekri-Lefèvre D, Runge I, Legras A, Dequin P-F, et al. Respiratory pulse pressure variation fails to predict fluid responsiveness in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care. 2011;15(2):R85. doi: 10.1186/cc10083.
    1. Muller L, Toumi M, Bousquet P-J, Riu-Poulenc B, Louart G, Candela D, et al. An increase in aortic blood flow after an infusion of 100 ml colloid over 1 minute can predict fluid responsiveness. Anesthesiology. 2011;115(3):541–547. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318229a500.
    1. Cecconi M, Monti G, Hamilton MA, Puntis M, Dawson D, Tuccillo ML, et al. Efficacy of functional hemodynamic parameters power analysis in surgical patients. Minerva Anestesiol. 2012;78(5):527–533.
    1. Yazigi A, Khoury E, Hlais S, Madi-Jebara S, Haddad F, Hayek G, et al. Pulse pressure variation predicts fluid responsiveness in elderly patients after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2012;26(3):387–390. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2011.09.014.
    1. Oliveira-Costa C, Friedman G, Vieira S, Fialkow L. Pulse pressure variation and prediction of fluid responsiveness in patients ventilated with low tidal volumes. Clinics. 2012;67(7):773–778. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2012(07)12.
    1. Drvar Ž, Pavlek M, Drvar V, Tomašević B, Baronica R, Perić M. Varijacija Udarnog Volumena i Tlaka Pulsa Dobri su Pokazatelji Hemodinamskog Odgovora na Nadoknadu Volumena u Sepsi. Acta Medica Croat. 2013;67(5):407–414.
    1. Freitas FGR, Bafi AT, Nascente APM, Assunção M, Mazza B, Azevedo LCP, et al. Predictive value of pulse pressure variation for fluid responsiveness in septic patients using lung-protective ventilation strategies. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110(3):402–408. doi: 10.1093/bja/aes398.
    1. Trepte CJC, Eichhorn V, Haas SA, Stahl K, Schmid F, Nitzschke R, et al. Comparison of an automated respiratory systolic variation test with dynamic preload indicators to predict fluid responsiveness after major surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2013;111(5):736–742. doi: 10.1093/bja/aet204.
    1. Guarracino F, Ferro B, Forfori F, Bertini P, Magliacano L, Pinsky MR. Jugular vein distensibility predicts fluid responsiveness in septic patients. Crit Care. 2014;18(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/cc13174.
    1. Kang WS, Kim SH, Kim SY, Oh CS, Lee SA, Kim JS. The influence of positive end-expiratory pressure on stroke volume variation in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: An observational study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148(6):3139–3145. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.07.103.
    1. Ibarra-Estrada M, López-Pulgarín JA, Mijangos-Méndez JC, Díaz-Gómez JL, Aguirre-Avalos G. Respiratory variation in carotid peak systolic velocity predicts volume responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with septic shock: a prospective cohort study. Crit Ultrasound J. 2015;7(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/s13089-015-0029-1.
    1. Angappan S, Parida S, Vasudevan A, Badhe A. The comparison of stroke volume variation with central venous pressure in predicting fluid responsiveness in septic patients with acute circulatory failure. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2015;19(7):394–400. doi: 10.4103/0972-5229.160278.
    1. Mallat J, Meddour M, Durville E, Lemyze M, Pepy F, Temime J, et al. Decrease in pulse pressure and stroke volume variations after mini-fluid challenge accurately predicts fluid responsiveness. Br J Anaesth. 2015;115(3):449–456. doi: 10.1093/bja/aev222.
    1. Vistisen ST. Using extra systoles to predict fluid responsiveness in cardiothoracic critical care patients. J Clin Monit Comput. 2017;31(4):693–699. doi: 10.1007/s10877-016-9907-8.
    1. Liu Y, Wei L, Li G, Yu X, Li G, Li Y. Pulse pressure variation adjusted by respiratory changes in pleural pressure, rather than by tidal volume, reliably predicts fluid responsiveness in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(2):342–351. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001371.
    1. Cherpanath TGV, Geerts BF, Maas JJ, de Wilde RBP, Groeneveld AB, Jansen JR. Ventilator-induced central venous pressure variation can predict fluid responsiveness in post-operative cardiac surgery patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2016;60(10):1395–1403. doi: 10.1111/aas.12811.
    1. de Oliveira OH, de Freitas FGR, Ladeira RT, Fischer CH, Bafi AT, Azevedo LCP, et al. Comparison between respiratory changes in the inferior vena cava diameter and pulse pressure variation to predict fluid responsiveness in postoperative patients. J Crit Care. 2016;34:46–49. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.03.017.
    1. Sobczyk D, Nycz K, Andruszkiewicz P, Wierzbicki K, Stapor M. Ultrasonographic caval indices do not significantly contribute to predicting fluid responsiveness immediately after coronary artery bypass grafting when compared to passive leg raising. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2016;14(1):1–8.
    1. Myatra SN, Prabu NR, Divatia JV, Monnet X, Kulkarni AP, Teboul J. The changes in pulse pressure variation or stroke volume variation after a “Tidal Volume Challenge” reliably predict fluid responsiveness during low tidal volume ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:415–421. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002183.
    1. Yonis H, Bitker L, Aublanc M, Perinel Ragey S, Riad Z, Lissonde F, et al. Change in cardiac output during Trendelenburg maneuver is a reliable predictor of fluid responsiveness in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in the prone position under protective ventilation. Crit Care. 2017;21(1):1–12. doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1881-0.
    1. Jozwiak M, Depret F, Teboul JL, Alphonsine JE, Lai C, Richard C, et al. Predicting fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients by using combined end-expiratory and end-inspiratory occlusions with echocardiography. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(11):e1131–e1138. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002704.
    1. Ma G, Hao G, Yang X, Zhu D, Liu L, Liu H, et al. Internal jugular vein variability predicts fluid responsiveness in cardiac surgical patients with mechanical ventilation. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8:6. doi: 10.1186/s13613-017-0347-5.
    1. Georges D, de Courson H, Lanchon R, Sesay M, Nouette-Gaulain K, Biais M. End-expiratory occlusion maneuver to predict fluid responsiveness in the intensive care unit: an echocardiographic study. Crit Care. 2018;22(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1923-7.
    1. Dépret F, Jozwiak M, Teboul JL, Alphonsine JE, Richard C, Monnet X. Esophageal Doppler can predict fluid responsiveness through end-expiratory and end-inspiratory occlusion tests. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(2):e96–102. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003522.
    1. Fot EV, Izotova NN, Smetkin AA, Kuzkov VV, Kirov MY. Dynamic tests to predict fluid responsiveness after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2020;34(4):926–931. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2019.09.013.
    1. Messina A, Montagnini C, Cammarota G, De Rosa S, Giuliani F, Muratore L, et al. Tidal volume challenge to predict fluid responsiveness in the operating room: An observational study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2019;36(8):583–591. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000998.
    1. Gavelli F, Shi R, Teboul JL, Azzolina D, Monnet X. The end-expiratory occlusion test for detecting preload responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intensive Care. 2020;10(1):65. doi: 10.1186/s13613-020-00682-8.
    1. Monge García MI, Jian Z, Hatib F, Settels JJ, Cecconi M, Pinsky MR. Dynamic arterial elastance as a ventriculo-arterial coupling index: an experimental animal study. Front Physiol. 2020;11(April):1–16.
    1. Kelly RP, Ting CT, Yang TM, Liu CP, Maughan WL, Chang MS, et al. Effective arterial elastance as index of arterial vascular load in humans. Circulation. 1992;86(2):513–521. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.86.2.513.
    1. Michard F, Chemla D, Richard C, Wysocki M, Pinsky MR, Lecarpentier Y, et al. Clinical use of respiratory changes in arterial pulse pressure to monitor the hemodynamic effects of PEEP. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999;159(3):935–939. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.159.3.9805077.
    1. Khot Z, Murphy PB, Sela N, Parry NG, Vogt K, Ball IM. Incidence of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome: a systematic review. J Intensive Care Med. 2019;12:5.
    1. Díaz F, Erranz B, Donoso A, Salomon T, Cruces P. Influence of tidal volume on pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation during experimental intra-abdominal hypertension. BMC Anesth. 2015;15(1):127. doi: 10.1186/s12871-015-0105-x.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe