Predictive value of pulse pressure variation for fluid responsiveness in septic patients using lung-protective ventilation strategies

F G R Freitas, A T Bafi, A P M Nascente, M Assunção, B Mazza, L C P Azevedo, F R Machado, F G R Freitas, A T Bafi, A P M Nascente, M Assunção, B Mazza, L C P Azevedo, F R Machado

Abstract

Background: The applicability of pulse pressure variation (ΔPP) to predict fluid responsiveness using lung-protective ventilation strategies is uncertain in clinical practice. We designed this study to evaluate the accuracy of this parameter in predicting the fluid responsiveness of septic patients ventilated with low tidal volumes (TV) (6 ml kg(-1)).

Methods: Forty patients after the resuscitation phase of severe sepsis and septic shock who were mechanically ventilated with 6 ml kg(-1) were included. The ΔPP was obtained automatically at baseline and after a standardized fluid challenge (7 ml kg(-1)). Patients whose cardiac output increased by more than 15% were considered fluid responders. The predictive values of ΔPP and static variables [right atrial pressure (RAP) and pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP)] were evaluated through a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

Results: Thirty-four patients had characteristics consistent with acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome and were ventilated with high levels of PEEP [median (inter-quartile range) 10.0 (10.0-13.5)]. Nineteen patients were considered fluid responders. The RAP and PAOP significantly increased, and ΔPP significantly decreased after volume expansion. The ΔPP performance [ROC curve area: 0.91 (0.82-1.0)] was better than that of the RAP [ROC curve area: 0.73 (0.59-0.90)] and pulmonary artery occlusion pressure [ROC curve area: 0.58 (0.40-0.76)]. The ROC curve analysis revealed that the best cut-off for ΔPP was 6.5%, with a sensitivity of 0.89, specificity of 0.90, positive predictive value of 0.89, and negative predictive value of 0.90.

Conclusions: Automatized ΔPP accurately predicted fluid responsiveness in septic patients ventilated with low TV.

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Curvilinear relationship between ΔPP6 at baseline and changes in CO after the fluid challenge. ΔPP6, pulse pressure variation (6 ml kg−1); CO, cardiac output. R2: 0.71, P<0.001.
Fig 2
Fig 2
ROC curve for ΔPP6. The ROC curve area was 0.91 (0.05) (P<0.001).

References

    1. Michard F, Descorps-Declere A, Lopes M. Using pulse pressure variation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med. 2008;36:2946–2948.
    1. Michard F, Teboul JL. Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: a critical analysis of the evidence. Chest. 2002;121:2000–2008.
    1. Michard F, Boussat S, Chemla D, et al. Relation between respiratory changes in arterial pulse pressure and fluid responsiveness in septic patients with acute circulatory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;162:134–138.
    1. Preisman S, Kogan S, Berkenstadt H, Perel A. Predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: functional haemodynamic parameters including the Respiratory Systolic Variation Test and static preload indicators. Br J Anaesth. 2005;95:746–755.
    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;37:2642–2647.
    1. Matthay M, Zimmerman G, Esmon C, et al. Future research directions in acute lung injury: summary of a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;167:1027–1035.
    1. Michard F. Changes in arterial pressure during mechanical ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:419–428.
    1. Pinsky MR. Using ventilation-induced aortic pressure and flow variation to diagnose preload responsiveness. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:1008–1010.
    1. De Backer D, Heenen S, Piagnerelli M, Koch M, Vincent J. Pulse pressure variations to predict fluid responsiveness: influence of tidal volume. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31:517–523.
    1. Lakhal K, Ehrmann S, Benzekri-Lefèvre D, et al. Respiratory pulse pressure variation fails to predict fluid responsiveness in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care. 2011;15:R85.
    1. Huang C, Fu J, Hu H, 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;36:2810–2816.
    1. da Silva Ramos FJ, de Oliveira EM, Park M, Schettino GP, Azevedo LC. Heart–lung interactions with different ventilatory settings during acute lung injury and hypovolaemia: an experimental study. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106:394–402.
    1. Teboul J, Vieillard-Baron A. Clinical value of pulse pressure variations in ARDS. Still an unresolved issue? Intensive Care Med. 2005;31:499–500.
    1. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Conference: definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. Crit Care Med. 1992;20:864–874.
    1. Monnet X, Teboul JL. Volume responsiveness. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2007;13:549–553.
    1. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1301–1308.
    1. Stetz CW, Miller RG, Kelly GE. Reliability of the thermodilution method in the determination of cardiac output in clinical practice. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1982;126:1001–1004.
    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;106:1201–1206.
    1. Bernard GR, Artigas A, Brigham KL, et al. Report of the American-European consensus conference on ARDS: definitions, mechanisms, relevant outcomes and clinical trial coordination. The Consensus Committee. Intensive Care Med. 1994;20:225–232.
    1. Wiesenack C, Fiegl C, Keyser A, Prasser C, Keyl C. Assessment of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated cardiac surgical patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005;22:658–665.
    1. Marx G, Cope T, McCrossan L, et al. Assessing fluid responsiveness by stroke volume variation in mechanically ventilated patients with severe sepsis. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2004;21:132–138.
    1. Vallée F, Richard JC, Mari A, et al. Pulse pressure variations adjusted by alveolar driving pressure to assess fluid responsiveness. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35:1004–1010.
    1. De Backer D, Taccone FS, Holsten R, Ibrahimi F, Vincent JL. Influence of respiratory rate on stroke volume variation in mechanically ventilated patients. Anesthesiology. 2009;110:1092–1097.
    1. Wyler von Ballmoos M, Takala J, Roeck M, et al. Pulse-pressure variation and hemodynamic response in patients with elevated pulmonary artery pressure: a clinical study. Crit Care. 2010;14:R111.
    1. Puybasset L, Cluzel P, Chao N, Slutsky AS, Coriat P, Rouby JJ. A computed tomography scan assessment of regional lung volume in acute lung injury. The CT Scan ARDS Study Group. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998;158:1644–1655.
    1. Wiklund CU, Morel DR, Orbring-Wiklund H, et al. Influence of tidal volume on pulse pressure variations in hypovolemic ventilated pigs with acute respiratory distress-like syndrome. Anesthesiology. 2010;113:630–638.
    1. Kim H, Pinsky M. Effect of tidal volume, sampling duration, and cardiac contractility on pulse pressure and stroke volume variation during positive-pressure ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2008;36:2858–2862.
    1. Perel A. Automated assessment of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. Anesth Analg. 2008;106:1031–1033.
    1. Lopes MR, Oliveira MA, Pereira VO, Lemos IP, Auler JO, Jr, Michard F. Goal-directed fluid management based on pulse pressure variation monitoring during high-risk surgery: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Crit Care. 2007;11:R100.
    1. Cannesson M, Slieker J, Desebbe O, et al. The ability of a novel algorithm for automatic estimation of the respiratory variations in arterial pulse pressure to monitor fluid responsiveness in the operating room. Anesth Analg. 2008;106:1195–1200.
    1. Derichard A, Robin E, Tavernier B, et al. Automated pulse pressure and stroke volume variations from radial artery: evaluation during major abdominal surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2009;103:678–684.
    1. Michard F, Teboul JL, Richard C. Influence of tidal volume on stroke volume variation. Does it really matter? Intensive Care Med. 2003;29:1613.
    1. Charron C, Fessenmeyer C, Cosson C, et al. The influence of tidal volume on the dynamic variables of fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients. Anesth Analg. 2006;102:1511–1517.
    1. Critchley LA, Lee A, Ho AM. A critical review of the ability of continuous cardiac output monitors to measure trends in cardiac output. Anesth Analg. 2010;111:1180–1192.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi