Tidal volume challenge to predict preload responsiveness in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome under prone position

Rui Shi, Soufia Ayed, Francesca Moretto, Danila Azzolina, Nello De Vita, Francesco Gavelli, Simone Carelli, Arthur Pavot, Christopher Lai, Xavier Monnet, Jean-Louis Teboul, Rui Shi, Soufia Ayed, Francesca Moretto, Danila Azzolina, Nello De Vita, Francesco Gavelli, Simone Carelli, Arthur Pavot, Christopher Lai, Xavier Monnet, Jean-Louis Teboul

Abstract

Background: Prone position is frequently used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), especially during the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Our study investigated the ability of pulse pressure variation (PPV) and its changes during a tidal volume challenge (TVC) to assess preload responsiveness in ARDS patients under prone position.

Methods: This was a prospective study conducted in a 25-bed intensive care unit at a university hospital. We included patients with ARDS under prone position, ventilated with 6 mL/kg tidal volume and monitored by a transpulmonary thermodilution device. We measured PPV and its changes during a TVC (ΔPPV TVC6-8) after increasing the tidal volume from 6 to 8 mL/kg for one minute. Changes in cardiac index (CI) during a Trendelenburg maneuver (ΔCITREND) and during end-expiratory occlusion (EEO) at 8 mL/kg tidal volume (ΔCI EEO8) were recorded. Preload responsiveness was defined by both ΔCITREND ≥ 8% and ΔCI EEO8 ≥ 5%. Preload unresponsiveness was defined by both ΔCITREND < 8% and ΔCI EEO8 < 5%.

Results: Eighty-four sets of measurements were analyzed in 58 patients. Before prone positioning, the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen was 104 ± 27 mmHg. At the inclusion time, patients were under prone position for 11 (2-14) hours. Norepinephrine was administered in 83% of cases with a dose of 0.25 (0.15-0.42) µg/kg/min. The positive end-expiratory pressure was 14 (11-16) cmH2O. The driving pressure was 12 (10-17) cmH2O, and the respiratory system compliance was 32 (22-40) mL/cmH2O. Preload responsiveness was detected in 42 cases. An absolute change in PPV ≥ 3.5% during a TVC assessed preload responsiveness with an area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve of 0.94 ± 0.03 (sensitivity: 98%, specificity: 86%) better than that of baseline PPV (0.85 ± 0.05; p = 0.047). In the 56 cases where baseline PPV was inconclusive (≥ 4% and < 11%), ΔPPV TVC6-8 ≥ 3.5% still enabled to reliably assess preload responsiveness (AUROC: 0.91 ± 0.05, sensitivity: 97%, specificity: 81%; p < 0.01 vs. baseline PPV).

Conclusion: In patients with ARDS under low tidal volume ventilation during prone position, the changes in PPV during a TVC can reliably assess preload responsiveness without the need for cardiac output measurements.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04457739). Registered 30 June 2020 -Retrospectively registered, https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT04457739.

Keywords: ARDS; End-expiratory occlusion test; Fluid responsiveness; Pulse pressure variation.

Conflict of interest statement

Drs. Jean-Louis Teboul and Xavier Monnet are members of the Medical Advisory Board of Getinge, Sweden. The other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study protocol
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The comparison of the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves of baseline pulse pressure variation (PPVbase) at a tidal volume of 6 mL/kg predicted body weight versus changes in pulse pressure variation during a tidal volume challenge (ΔPPV TVC6–8)

References

    1. Papazian L, Aubron C, Brochard L, Chiche JD, Combes A, Dreyfuss D, et al. Formal guidelines: management of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Ann Intensive Care. 2019;9:69. doi: 10.1186/s13613-019-0540-9.
    1. Ferguson ND, Fan E, Camporota L, Antonelli M, Anzueto A, Beale R, et al. The Berlin definition of ARDS: an expanded rationale, justification, and supplementary material. Intensiv Care Med. 2012;38:1573–1582. doi: 10.1007/s00134-012-2682-1.
    1. Guérin C, Reignier J, Richard JC, Beuret P, Gacouin A, Boulain T, et al. Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:2159–2168. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1214103.
    1. Jochmans S, Mazerand S, Chelly J, Pourcine F, Sy O, Thieulot-Rolin N, et al. Duration of prone position sessions: a prospective cohort study. Ann Intensiv Care. 2020;10:66. doi: 10.1186/s13613-020-00683-7.
    1. Langer T, Brioni M, Guzzardella A, Carlesso E, Cabrini L, Castelli G, et al. Prone position in intubated, mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: a multi-centric study of more than 1000 patients. Crit Care. 2021;25:128. doi: 10.1186/s13054-021-03552-2.
    1. Scaramuzzo G, Gamberini L, Tonetti T, Zani G, Ottaviani I, Mazzoli CA, et al. Sustained oxygenation improvement after first prone positioning is associated with liberation from mechanical ventilation and mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a cohort study. Ann Intensiv Care. 2021;11:63. doi: 10.1186/s13613-021-00853-1.
    1. Greco M, De Corte T, Ercole A, Antonelli M, Azoulay E, Citerio G, et al. Clinical and organizational factors associated with mortality during the peak of first COVID-19 wave: the global UNITE-COVID study. Intensive Care Med. 2022;48:690–705. doi: 10.1007/s00134-022-06705-1.
    1. Ferreira JC, Ho YL, Besen B, Malbouisson LMS, Taniguchi LU, Mendes PV, et al. Protective ventilation and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19: a cohort study. Ann Intensiv Care. 2021;11:92.
    1. Grimaldi D, Aissaoui N, Blonz G, Carbutti G, Courcelle R, Gaudry S, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of acute respiratory distress syndrome related to COVID-19 in Belgian and French intensive care units according to antiviral strategies: the COVADIS multicentre observational study. Ann Intensiv Care. 2020;10:131. doi: 10.1186/s13613-020-00751-y.
    1. Thompson BT, Chambers RC, Liu KD. Acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:562–572. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1608077.
    1. Shi R, Lai C, Teboul JL, Dres M, Moretto F, De Vita N, et al. COVID-19 ARDS is characterized by higher extravascular lung water than non-COVID-19 ARDS: the PiCCOVID study. Crit Care. 2021;25:186. doi: 10.1186/s13054-021-03594-6.
    1. Vieillard-Baron A, Matthay M, Teboul JL, Bein T, Schultz M, Magder S, et al. Experts' opinion on management of hemodynamics in ARDS patients: focus on the effects of mechanical ventilation. Intensiv Care Med. 2016;42:739–749. doi: 10.1007/s00134-016-4326-3.
    1. Hajjar LA, Costa I, Rizk SI, Biselli B, Gomes BR, Bittar CS, et al. Intensive care management of patients with COVID-19: a practical approach. Ann Intensiv Care. 2021;11:36. doi: 10.1186/s13613-021-00820-w.
    1. Briel M, Meade M, Mercat A, Brower RG, Talmor D, Walter SD, et al. Higher vs lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2010;303:865–873. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.218.
    1. Mekontso Dessap A, Boissier F, Charron C, Bégot E, Repessé X, Legras A, et al. Acute cor pulmonale during protective ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: prevalence, predictors, and clinical impact. Intensiv Care Med. 2016;42:862–870. doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-4141-2.
    1. Michard F, Teboul JL. Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: a critical analysis of the evidence. Chest. 2002;121:2000–2008. doi: 10.1378/chest.121.6.2000.
    1. Clark WR, Jr, Nieman GF, Goyette D, Gryzboski D. Effects of crystalloid on lung fluid balance after smoke inhalation. Ann Surg. 1988;208:56–64. doi: 10.1097/00000658-198807000-00008.
    1. Mendes RS, Pelosi P, Schultz MJ, Rocco PRM, Silva PL. Fluids in ARDS: more pros than cons. Intensiv Care Med Exp. 2020;8:32. doi: 10.1186/s40635-020-00319-x.
    1. Shi R, Monnet X, Teboul JL. Parameters of fluid responsiveness. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2020;26:319–326. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000723.
    1. Alvarado Sánchez JI, Caicedo Ruiz JD, Diaztagle Fernández JJ, Amaya Zuñiga WF, Ospina-Tascón GA, Cruz Martínez LE. Predictors of fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients mechanically ventilated at low tidal volumes: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intensiv Care. 2021;11:28. doi: 10.1186/s13613-021-00817-5.
    1. Biais M, Stecken L, Ottolenghi L, Roullet S, Quinart A, Masson F, et al. The ability of pulse pressure variations obtained with CNAP™ device to predict fluid responsiveness in the operating room. Anesth Analg. 2011;113:523–528. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182240054.
    1. Monnet X, Dres M, Ferré A, Le Teuff G, Jozwiak M, Bleibtreu A, et al. Prediction of fluid responsiveness by a continuous non-invasive assessment of arterial pressure in critically ill patients: comparison with four other dynamic indices. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109:330–338. doi: 10.1093/bja/aes182.
    1. Jozwiak M, Monnet X, Teboul JL. Prediction of fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients. Ann Transl Med. 2018;6:352. doi: 10.21037/atm.2018.05.03.
    1. Michard F, Chemla D, Teboul JL. Applicability of pulse pressure variation: How many shades of grey? Crit Care. 2015;19:144. doi: 10.1186/s13054-015-0869-x.
    1. De Backer D, Heenen S, Piagnerelli M, Koch M, Vincent JL. Pulse pressure variations to predict fluid responsiveness: influence of tidal volume. Intensiv Care Med. 2005;31:517–523. doi: 10.1007/s00134-005-2586-4.
    1. Myatra SN, Prabu NR, Divatia JV, Monnet X, Kulkarni AP, Teboul JL. 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. Messina A, Montagnini C, Cammarota G, Giuliani F, Muratore L, Baggiani M, et al. Assessment of fluid responsiveness in prone neurosurgical patients undergoing protective ventilation: role of dynamic indices, tidal volume challenge, and end-expiratory occlusion test. Anesth Analg. 2020;130:752–761. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004494.
    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;21:295. doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1881-0.
    1. Ranieri VM, Rubenfeld GD, Thompson BT, Ferguson ND, Caldwell E, Fan E, et al. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin Definition. JAMA. 2012;307:2526–2533.
    1. Monnet X, Teboul JL. Transpulmonary thermodilution: advantages and limits. Crit Care. 2017;21:147. doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1739-5.
    1. Gavelli F, Teboul JL, Monnet X. The end-expiratory occlusion test: please, let me hold your breath! Crit Care. 2019;23:274. doi: 10.1186/s13054-019-2554-y.
    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 Intensiv Care. 2020;10:65. doi: 10.1186/s13613-020-00682-8.
    1. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143:29–36. doi: 10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747.
    1. Dean CB, Nielsen JD. Generalized linear mixed models: a review and some extensions. Lifetime Data Anal. 2007;13:497–512. doi: 10.1007/s10985-007-9065-x.
    1. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Roy Stat Soc: Ser B. 1995;57:289–300.
    1. Benjamini Y, Heller R, Yekutieli D. Selective inference in complex research. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2009;367:4255–4271. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2009.0127.
    1. LeDell E, Petersen M, van der Laan M. Computationally efficient confidence intervals for cross-validated area under the ROC curve estimates. Electron J Stat. 2015;9(1583–607):25.
    1. Geisser S. The predictive sample reuse method with applications. J Am Stat Assoc. 1975;70:320–328. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1975.10479865.
    1. Carpenter J, Bithell J. Bootstrap confidence intervals: when, which, what? A practical guide for medical statisticians. Stat Med. 2000;19:1141–1164. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(20000515)19:9<1141::AID-SIM479>;2-F.
    1. Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, Sanchez JC, et al. pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinf. 2011;12:77. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-77.
    1. Ray P, Le Manach Y, Riou B, Houle TT. Statistical evaluation of a biomarker. Anesthesiology. 2010;112:1023–1040. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181d47604.
    1. Le Manach Y, Hofer CK, Lehot JJ, Vallet B, Goarin JP, Tavernier B, et al. Can changes in arterial pressure be used to detect changes in cardiac output during volume expansion in the perioperative period? Anesthesiology. 2012;117:1165–1174. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318275561d.
    1. Kirkpatrick AW, Roberts DJ, De Waele J, Jaeschke R, Malbrain ML, De Keulenaer B, et al. Intra-abdominal hypertension and the abdominal compartment syndrome: updated consensus definitions and clinical practice guidelines from the world society of the abdominal compartment syndrome. Intensiv Care Med. 2013;39:1190–1206. doi: 10.1007/s00134-013-2906-z.
    1. Monnet X, Teboul JL. Assessment of fluid responsiveness: recent advances. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2018;24:190–195. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000501.
    1. Teboul JL, Monnet X, Chemla D, Michard F. Arterial pulse pressure variation with mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199:22–31. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201801-0088CI.
    1. Muller L, Louart G, Bousquet PJ, Candela D, Zoric L, de La Coussaye JE, et al. The influence of the airway driving pressure on pulsed pressure variation as a predictor of fluid responsiveness. Intensiv Care Med. 2010;36:496–503. doi: 10.1007/s00134-009-1686-y.
    1. Taccheri T, Gavelli F, Teboul JL, Shi R, Monnet X. Do changes in pulse pressure variation and inferior vena cava distensibility during passive leg raising and tidal volume challenge detect preload responsiveness in case of low tidal volume ventilation? Crit Care. 2021;25:110. doi: 10.1186/s13054-021-03515-7.
    1. de Courson H, Ferrer L, Cane G, Verchère E, Sesay M, Nouette-Gaulain K, et al. Evaluation of least significant changes of pulse contour analysis-derived parameters. Ann Intensiv Care. 2019;9:116. doi: 10.1186/s13613-019-0590-z.
    1. Freitas FG, Bafi AT, Nascente AP, Assunção M, Mazza B, Azevedo LC, et al. Predictive value of pulse pressure variation for fluid responsiveness in septic patients using lung-protective ventilation strategies. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110:402–408. doi: 10.1093/bja/aes398.
    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;36:583–591. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000998.
    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:e96–e102. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003522.
    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:e1131–e1138. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002704.
    1. Cecconi M, Hernandez G, Dunser M, Antonelli M, Baker T, Bakker J, et al. Fluid administration for acute circulatory dysfunction using basic monitoring: narrative review and expert panel recommendations from an ESICM task force. Intensiv Care Med. 2019;45:21–32. doi: 10.1007/s00134-018-5415-2.
    1. Vignon P, Repessé X, Bégot E, Léger J, Jacob C, Bouferrache K, et al. Comparison of echocardiographic indices used to predict fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195:1022–1032. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201604-0844OC.
    1. Adda I, Lai C, Teboul JL, Guerin L, Gavelli F, Monnet X. Norepinephrine potentiates the efficacy of volume expansion on mean systemic pressure in septic shock. Crit Care. 2021;25:302. doi: 10.1186/s13054-021-03711-5.
    1. Hamzaoui O, Shi R, Carelli S, Sztrymf B, Prat D, Jacobs F, et al. Changes in pulse pressure variation to assess preload responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with spontaneous breathing activity: an observational study. Br J Anaesth. 2021;127:532–538. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2021.05.034.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다