Can a central blood volume deficit be detected by systolic pressure variation during spontaneous breathing?

Michael Dahl, Chris Hayes, Bodil Steen Rasmussen, Anders Larsson, Niels H Secher, Michael Dahl, Chris Hayes, Bodil Steen Rasmussen, Anders Larsson, Niels H Secher

Abstract

Background: Whether during spontaneous breathing arterial pressure variations (APV) can detect a volume deficit is not established. We hypothesized that amplification of intra-thoracic pressure oscillations by breathing through resistors would enhance APV to allow identification of a reduced cardiac output (CO). This study tested that hypothesis in healthy volunteers exposed to central hypovolemia by head-up tilt.

Methods: Thirteen healthy volunteers were exposed to central hypovolemia by 45° head-up tilt while breathing through a facemask with 7.5 cmH2O inspiratory and/or expiratory resistors. A brachial arterial catheter was used to measure blood pressure and thus systolic pressure variation (SPV), pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation . Pulse contour analysis determined stroke volume (SV) and CO and we evaluated whether APV could detect a 10 % decrease in CO.

Results: During head-up tilt SV decreased form 91 (±46) to 55 (±24) mL (mean ± SD) and CO from 5.8 (±2.9) to 4.0 (±1.8) L/min (p < 0.05), while heart rate increased (65 (±11) to 75 (±13) bpm; P < 0.05). Systolic pressure decreased from 127 (±14) to 121 (±13) mmHg during head-up tilt, while SPV tended to increase (from 21 (±15)% to 30 (±13)%). Yet during head-up tilt, a SPV ≥ 37 % predicted a decrease in CO ≥ 10 % with a sensitivity and specificity of 78 % and 100 %, respectively.

Conclusion: In spontaneously breathing healthy volunteers combined inspiratory and expiratory resistors enhance SPV during head-up tilted induced central hypovolemia and allow identifying a 10 % reduction in CO. Applying inspiratory and expiratory resistors might detect a fluid deficit in spontaneously breathing patients.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02549482 Registered September 10(th) 2015.

Keywords: Fluid responsiveness; Head-up tilt; Pulse pressure variation; Spontaneous breathing; Stroke volume variation; Systolic pressure variation.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Left: four respiratory resistors: no resistance, expiratory resistance, inspiratory resistance, and both inspiratory and expiratory resistances. Right: facemask applied with combined inspiratory and expiratory resistors (Model photo)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Three postures representing normovolemia (supine), central hypovolemia (head-up tilt), and central hypervolemia (head-down tilt)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves during head-up tilt for systolic pressure variation (SPV) with the four different respiratory resistors. Area under the ROC curve 0.43 (0.10; 0.77 ) (confidence interval) for no resistor, 0.67 (0.25 ;1.00) for the inspiratory resistor, 0.70 (0.37; 1.00) for the expiratory resistor, and 0.96 (0.86; 1.00) for the combined inspiratory and expiratory resistor
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves during head-up tilt with the four different respiratory resistors. a: Pulse pressure variation (PPV) with area under the ROC curve 0.83 (0.61;1.00) (confidence interval) for no resistor, 0.73 (0.42;1.00) for the inspiratory resistor, 0.73 (0.40;1.00) for the expiratory resistor, and 0.59 (0.25;0.93) for the combined inspiratory and expiratory resistor. b: Stroke volume variation (SVV) with area under the ROC curve 0.73 (0.46;1.00) for no resistor, 0.75 (0.46;1.00) for the inspiratory resistor, 0.82 (0.58;1.00) for the expiratory resistor, and 0.58 (0.28;0.88) for the combined inspiratory and expiratory resistor. c: Central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) with area under the ROC curve 0.67 (0.29;1.00) for no resistor, 0.42 (0.00;0.88) for the inspiratory resistor, 0.46 (0.02;0.90) for the expiratory resistor, and 0.50 (0.08;0.92) for the combined inspiratory and expiratory resistor. d: Systolic blood pressure with area under the ROC curve 0.70 (0.37;1.00) for no resistor, 0.75 (0.46;1.00) for the inspiratory resistor, 0.68 (0.31;1.00) for the expiratory resistor, and 0.67 (0.34;0.99) for the combined inspiratory and expiratory resistor. e: Heart rate (HR) with area under the ROC curve 0.52 (0.08;0.95) for no resistor, 0.53 (0.11;0.96) for the inspiratory resistor, 0.68 (0.29;1.00) for the expiratory resistor, and 0.63 (0.22;1.00) for the combined inspiratory and expiratory resistor. f: Stroke volume (SV) with area under the ROC curve 0.63 (0.22;1.00) for no resistor, 0.70 (0.36;1.00) for the inspiratory resistor, 0.67 (0.25;1.00) for the expiratory resistor, and 0.60 (0.19;1.00) for the combined inspiratory and expiratory resistor

References

    1. Rooke G, Schwid H, Shapira Y. The Effect of Graded Hemorrhage and Intravascular Volume Replacement on Systolic Pressure Variation in Humans During Mecanical and Spontaneous Ventilation. Anesth Analg. 1995;80:925–32.
    1. Berlin DA, Bakker J. Starling curves and central venous pressure. Crit Care. 2015;19:55–61. doi: 10.1186/s13054-015-0776-1.
    1. Cecconi M, Hofer C, Teboul J-L, Pettila V, Wilkman E, Molnar Z, Della Rocca G, Aldecoa C, Artigas A, Jog S, Sander M, Spies C, Lefrant J-Y, De Backer D. Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41:1529–37. doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-3850-x.
    1. Marik PE, Cavallazzi R. Does the Central Venous Pressure Predict Fluid Responsiveness? An Updated Meta-Analysis and a Plea for Some Common Sense. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:1774–81. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31828a25fd.
    1. Secher NH, Van Lieshout JJ. Hypovolaemic Shock. In: Clinical Fluid Therapy in the Perioperative Setting. London, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 2011:166–176.
    1. Wu Y, Zhou S, Zhou Z, Liu B. A 10 second fluid challenge guided by transthoracic echocardiography can predict fluid responsiveness. Crit Care. 2014;18:R108. doi: 10.1186/cc13891.
    1. De Backer D, Scolletta S. Why do pulse pressure variations fail to predict the response to fluids in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients ventilated with low tidal volume? Crit Care. 2011;15:150. doi: 10.1186/cc10111.
    1. Cecconi M, Monge García MI, Gracia Romero M, Mellinghoff J, Caliandro F, Grounds RM, Rhodes A. The Use of Pulse Pressure Variation and Stroke Volume Variation in Spontaneously Breathing Patients to Assess Dynamic Arterial Elastance and to Predict Arterial Pressure Response to Fluid Administration. Anesth Analg. 2015;120:76–84. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000442.
    1. Feihl F, Broccard AF. Interactions between respiration and systemic hemodynamics. Part I: basic concepts. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35:45–54. doi: 10.1007/s00134-008-1297-z.
    1. Feihl F, Broccard AF. Interactions between respiration and systemic hemodynamics. Part II: practical implications in critical care. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35:198–205. doi: 10.1007/s00134-008-1298-y.
    1. Magder S. Clinical usefulness of respiratory variations in arterial pressure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004;169:151–5. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200211-1360CC.
    1. Michard F, Chemla D, Richard C, Wysocki M, Pinsky MR, Lecarpentier Y, Teboul JL. Clinical use of respiratory changes in arterial pulse pressure to monitor the hemodynamic effects of PEEP. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999;159:935–9. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.159.3.9805077.
    1. Michard F, Teboul J. Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: A critical analysis of the evidence. Chest. 2002;121:2000–8. doi: 10.1378/chest.121.6.2000.
    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;18:650. doi: 10.1186/s13054-014-0650-6.
    1. Heenen S, De Backer D, Vincent J-L. How can the response to volume expansion in patients with spontaneous respiratory movements be predicted? Crit Care. 2006;10:R102. doi: 10.1186/cc4970.
    1. Teboul J-L, Monnet X. Prediction of volume responsiveness in critically ill patients with spontaneous breathing activity. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2008;14:334–9. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e3282fd6e1e.
    1. Soubrier S, Saulnier F, Hubert H, Delour P, Lenci H, Onimus T, Nseir S, Durocher A. Can dynamic indicators help the prediction of fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing critically ill patients? Intensive Care Med. 2007;33:1117–24. doi: 10.1007/s00134-007-0644-9.
    1. Monnet X, Rienzo M, Osman D, Anguel N, Richard C, Pinsky MR, Teboul J-L. Passive leg raising predicts fluid responsiveness in the critically ill. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:1402–7. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000215453.11735.06.
    1. Monnet X, Bataille A, Magalhaes E, Barrois J, Le Corre M, Gosset C, Guerin L, Richard C, Teboul J-L. End-tidal carbon dioxide is better than arterial pressure for predicting volume responsiveness by the passive leg raising test. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39:93–100. doi: 10.1007/s00134-012-2693-y.
    1. Monnet X, Teboul J-L. Passive leg raising: five rules, not a drop of fluid! Crit Care. 2015;19:18. doi: 10.1186/s13054-014-0708-5.
    1. Frost H, Mortensen C, Secher N, Nielsen H. Postoperative volume balance: Does stroke volume increase in Trendelenburg’s position. Clin Physiol Func Imag. 2015. (In press).
    1. Zaniboni M, Formenti P, Umbrello M, Galimberti A, Noto A, Iapichino G. Pulse and systolic pressure variation assessment in partially assisted ventilatory support. J Clin Monit Comput. 2008;22:355–9. doi: 10.1007/s10877-008-9142-z.
    1. Dahl MK, Vistisen ST, Koefoed-Nielsen J, Larsson A. Using an expiratory resistor, arterial pulse pressure variations predict fluid responsiveness during spontaneous breathing: an experimental porcine study. Crit Care. 2009;13:R39. doi: 10.1186/cc7760.
    1. Bronzwaer A-SGT, Ouweneel DM, Stok WJ, Westerhof BE, van Lieshout JJ. Arterial Pressure Variation as a Biomarker of Preload Dependency in Spontaneously Breathing Subjects – A Proof of Principle. PLoS One. 2015;10 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137364.
    1. Matzen S, Perko G, Groth S, Friedman DB, Secher NH. Blood volume distribution during head-up tilt induced central hypovolaemia in man. Clin Physiol. 1991;11:411–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-097X.1991.tb00813.x.
    1. Brigden W, Howarth S, Sharpey-Schafer EP. Postural changes in the peripheral blood-flow of normal subjects with observations on vasovagal fainting reactions as a result of tilting, the lordotic posture, pregnancy and spinal anæsthesia. Clin Sci. 1950;9:79–90.
    1. Knopp R, Claypool R, Leonardi D. Use of the Tilt Test in Measuring Acute Blood Loss. Ann Emerg Med. 1980;9:29–32.
    1. Wilson TE, Brothers RM, Tollund C, Dawson EA, Nissen P, Yoshiga CC, Jons C, Secher NH, Crandall CG. Effect of thermal stress on Frank-Starling relations in humans. J Physiol. 2009;587:3383–92. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2009.170381.
    1. Harms MPM, Van Lieshout JJ, Jenstrup M, Pott F, Secher NH. Postural effects on cardiac output and mixed venous oxygen saturation in human. Exp Physiol. 2003;88:611–6. doi: 10.1113/eph8802580.
    1. Bundgaard-Nielsen M, Sørensen H, Dalsgaard M, Rasmussen P, Secher NH. Relationship between stroke volume, cardiac output and filling of the heart during tilt. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009;53:1324–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2009.02062.x.
    1. Magder S. Predicting volume responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients: still a challenging problem. Crit Care. 2006;10:165. doi: 10.1186/cc5029.
    1. Monnet X, Anguel N, Naudin B, Jabot J, Richard C, Teboul J-L. Arterial pressure-based cardiac output in septic patients: different accuracy of pulse contour and uncalibrated pressure waveform devices. Crit Care. 2010;14:R109. doi: 10.1186/cc9058.
    1. Zöllei É, Bertalan V, Németh A, Csábi P, László I, Kaszaki J, Rudas L. Non-invasive detection of hypovolemia or fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing subjects. BMC Anesthesiol. 2013;13:40. doi: 10.1186/1471-2253-13-40.

Source: PubMed

3
購読する