Reliability of Passive Leg Raising, Stroke Volume Variation and Pulse Pressure Variation to Predict Fluid Responsiveness During Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation After Cardiac Surgery: A Prospective, Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: During assisted ventilation and spontaneous breathing, functional haemodynamic parameters, including stroke volume variation (SVV) and pulse pressure variation (PPV), are of limited value to predict fluid responsiveness, and the passive leg raising (PLR) manoeuvre has been advocated as a surrogate method. We aimed to study the predictive value of SVV, PPV and PLR for fluid responsiveness during weaning from mechanical ventilation after cardiac surgery. METHODS: Haemodynamic variables and fluid responsiveness were assessed in 34 patients. Upon arrival at the intensive care unit, measurements were performed during continuous mandatory ventilation (CMV) and spontaneous breathing with pressure support (PSV) and after extubation (SPONT). The prediction of a positive fluid responsiveness (defined as stroke volume increase >15% after fluid administration) was tested by calculating the specific receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: A significant increase in stroke volumes was observed during CMV, PSV and SPONT after fluid administration. There were 19 fluid responders (55.9%) during CMV, with 22 (64.7%) and 13 (40.6%) during PSV and SPONT, respectively. The predictive value for a positive fluid responsiveness (area under the ROC curve) for SVV was 0.88, 0.70 and 0.56; was 0.83, 0.69 and 0.48 for PPV; was 0.72, 0.74 and 0.70 for PLR during CMV, PSV and SPONT, respectively. CONCLUSION: During mechanical ventilation, adequate prediction of fluid responsiveness using SVV and PPV was observed. However, during spontaneous breathing, the reliability of SVV and PPV was poor. In this period, PLR as a surrogate was able to predict fluid responsiveness better than SVV or PPV but was less reliable than previously reported.

Prediction of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated cardiac surgical patients: the performance of seven different functional hemodynamic parameters.

BACKGROUND: Functional hemodynamic parameters such as stroke volume and pulse pressure variation (SVV and PPV) have been shown to be reliable predictors of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. Today, different minimally- and non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring systems measure functional hemodynamic parameters. Although some of these parameters are described by the same name, they differ in their measurement technique and thus may provide different results. We aimed to test the performance of seven functional hemodynamic parameters simultaneously in the same clinical setting. METHODS: Hemodynamic measurements were done in 30 cardiac surgery patients that were mechanically ventilated. Before and after a standardized intravenous fluid bolus, hemodynamics were measured by the following monitoring systems: PiCCOplus (SVVPiCCO, PPVPiCCO), LiDCOrapid (SVVLiDCO, PPVLiDCO), FloTrac (SVVFloTrac), Philips Intellivue (PPVPhilips) and Masimo pulse oximeter (pleth variability index, PVI). Prediction of fluid responsiveness was tested by calculation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves including a gray zone approach and compared using Fisher's Z-Test. RESULTS: Fluid administration resulted in an increase in cardiac output, while all functional hemodynamic parameters decreased. A wide range of areas under the ROC-curve (AUC's) was observed: AUC-SVVPiCCO = 0.91, AUC-PPVPiCCO = 0.88, AUC-SVVLiDCO = 0.78, AUC-PPVLiDCO = 0.89, AUC-SVVFloTrac = 0.87, AUC-PPVPhilips = 0.92 and AUC-PVI = 0.68. Optimal threshold values for prediction of fluid responsiveness ranged between 9.5 and 17.5%. Lowest threshold values were observed for SVVLiDCO, highest for PVI. CONCLUSION: All functional hemodynamic parameters tested except for PVI showed that their use allows a reliable identification of potential fluid responders. PVI however, may not be suitable after cardiac surgery to predict fluid responsiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02571465 , registered on October 7th, 2015 (retrospectively registered).

Accuracy, Precision, and Trending of 4 Pulse Wave Analysis Techniques in the Postoperative Period.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the accuracy, precision, and trending ability of the following 4 pulse wave analysis devices to measure continuous cardiac output: PiCCO2 ([PCCO]; Pulsion Medical System, Munich, Germany); LiDCORapid ([LCCO]; LiDCO Ltd, London, UK); FloTrac/Vigileo ([FCCO]; Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA); and Nexfin ([NCCO]; BMEYE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). DESIGN: Prospective, observational clinical study. SETTING: Intensive care unit of a single-center, teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised 22 adult patients after elective coronary artery bypass surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Three measurement cycles were performed in all patient durings their immediate postoperative intensive care stay before and after fluid loading. Hemodynamic measurements were performed 5 minutes before and immediately after the administration of 500 mL colloidal fluid over 20 minutes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: PCCO, LCCO, FCCO, and NCCO were assessed and compared with cardiac output derived from intermittent transpulmonary thermodilution (ICO). One hundred thirty-two matched sets of data were available for analysis. Bland-Altman analysis using linear mixed effects models with random effects for patient and trial revealed a mean bias ±2 standard deviation (%error) of -0.86 ± 1.41 L/min (34.9%) for PCCO-ICO, -0.26 ± 2.81 L/min (46.3%) for LCCO-ICO, -0.28 ± 2.39 L/min (43.7%) for FCCO-ICO, and -0.93 ± 2.25 L/min (34.6%) for NCCO-ICO. Bland-Altman plots without adjustment for repeated measurements and replicates yielded considerably larger limits of agreement. Trend analysis for all techniques did not meet criteria for acceptable performance. CONCLUSIONS: All 4 tested devices using pulse wave analysis for measuring cardiac output failed to meet current criteria for meaningful and adequate accuracy, precision, and trending ability in cardiac output monitoring.

Initial clinical experience with a miniaturized transesophageal echocardiography probe in a cardiac intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety of a novel, miniaturized, monoplane transesophageal echocardiography probe (mTEE) and its potential as a hemodynamic monitoring tool. DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis of the clinical evaluation of a disposable mTEE in ventilated patients with severe cardiogenic shock requiring hemodynamic support. mTEE assessment was performed by operators with mixed levels of TEE training. Information on hemodynamic interventions based on mTEE findings was recorded. SETTING: A tertiary university cardiac critical care unit. PARTICIPANTS: Male and female critical care patients admitted to the unit with severe hemodynamic instability. INTERVENTIONS: Insertion of miniaturized disposable TEE probe and hemodynamic and other critical care interventions based on this and conventional monitoring. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In 41 patients (51.2% female, 73.2% after cardiac surgery), hemodynamic support probe insertion was accomplished without major complications. A total of 195 mTEE studies were performed, resulting in changes in therapy in 37 (90.2%) patients based on mTEE findings, leading to an improvement in hemodynamic parameters in 33 (80.5%) patients. Right ventricular (RV) failure was diagnosed in 25 patients (67.6%) and mTEE had a direct therapeutic impact on management of RV failure in 17 patients (68 %). CONCLUSIONS: Insertion and operation of a novel, miniaturized transoesophageal echocardiography probe can be performed for up to 72 hours without major complications. Repeated assessment using this device provides complementary information to invasive monitoring in the majority of patients and has an impact on hemodynamic management.

Changes in the mean systemic filling pressure during a fluid challenge in postsurgical intensive care patients.

PURPOSE: The difference between mean systemic filling (Pmsf) and central venous pressure (CVP) is the venous return gradient (dVR). The aim of this study is to assess the significance of the Pmsf analogue (Pmsa) and the dVR during a fluid challenge. METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study in postsurgical patients. Patients were monitored with a central venous catheter, a LiDCO™plus and the Navigator™. A 250-ml intravenous fluid challenge was given over 5 min. A positive response to the fluid challenge was defined as either a stroke volume (SV) or cardiac output increase of greater than 10 %. RESULTS: A total of 101 fluid challenges were observed in 39 patients. In 43 events (42.6 %) the SV and CO increased by more than 10 %. Pmsa increased similarly during a fluid challenge in responders and non-responders (3.1 ± 1.9 vs. 3.1 ± 1.8, p = 0.9), whereas the dVR increased in responders (1.16 ± 0.8 vs. 0.2 ± 1, p < 0.001) as among non-responders CVP increased along with Pmsa (2.9 ± 1.7 vs. 3.1 ± 1.8, p = 0.15). Resistance to venous return did not change immediately after a fluid challenge. Heart performance (Eh) decreased significantly among non-responders (0.41 ± 0.15 vs. 0.34 ± 0.13, p < 0.001) whereas among responders it did not change when compared with baseline value (0.35 ± 0.15 vs. 0.34 ± 0.12, p = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: The changes in Pmsa and dVR measured at the bedside during a fluid challenge are consistent with the cardiovascular model described by Guyton.

Clinical validation of a new thermodilution system for the assessment of cardiac output and volumetric parameters.

INTRODUCTION: Transpulmonary thermodilution is used to measure cardiac output (CO), global end-diastolic volume (GEDV) and extravascular lung water (EVLW). A system has been introduced (VolumeView/EV1000™ system, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine CA, USA) that employs a novel algorithm for the mathematical analysis of the thermodilution curve. Our aim was to evaluate the agreement of this method with the established PiCCO™ method (Pulsion Medical Systems SE, Munich, Germany, clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01405040) METHODS: Seventy-two critically ill patients with clinical indication for advanced hemodynamic monitoring were included in this prospective, multicenter, observational study. During a 72-hour observation period, 443 sets of thermodilution measurements were performed with the new system. These measurements were electronically recorded, converted into an analog resistance signal and then re-analyzed by a PiCCO2™ device (Pulsion Medical Systems SE). RESULTS: For CO, GEDV, and EVLW, the systems showed a high correlation (r(2) = 0.981, 0.926 and 0.971, respectively), minimal bias (0.2 L/minute, 29.4 ml and 36.8 ml), and a low percentage error (9.7%, 11.5% and 12.2%). Changes in CO, GEDV and EVLW were tracked with a high concordance between the two systems, with a traditional concordance for CO, GEDV, and EVLW of 98.5%, 95.1%, and 97.7% and a polar plot concordance of 100%, 99.8% and 99.8% for CO, GEDV, and EVLW, respectively. Radial limits of agreement for CO, GEDV and EVLW were 0.31 ml/minute, 81 ml and 40 ml, respectively. The precision of GEDV measurements was significantly better using the VolumeView™ algorithm compared to the PiCCO™ algorithm (0.033 (0.03) versus 0.040 (0.03; median (interquartile range), P = 0.000049). CONCLUSIONS: For CO, GEDV, and EVLW, the agreement of both the individual measurements as well as measurements of change showed the interchangeability of the two methods. For the VolumeView method, the higher precision may indicate a more robust GEDV algorithm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01405040.

Less-invasive approaches to perioperative haemodynamic optimization.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A number of less-invasive haemodynamic monitoring devices have been introduced in recent years, largely replacing the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) as a standard monitoring tool. Apart from tracking cardiac output (CO), these monitors provide additional haemodynamic parameters. The aim of this article is to review the most widely used less-invasive monitoring modalities, their technical characteristics and limitations regarding their clinical performance. RECENT FINDINGS: The utilization of CO monitoring in the perioperative setting has been shown to be associated with improved outcomes if integrated into a haemodynamic optimization strategy. These findings provide the basis of recent recommendations for perioperative monitoring. SUMMARY: An array of monitoring modalities have been introduced that can reliably track CO in the perioperative setting and make the PAC dispensable in most clinical situations. In order to be used safely and efficiently, knowledge regarding the inherent monitoring techniques and their limitations, their clinical validity and the utility of the parameters provided is crucial.