Right ventricular failure in septic shock: characterization, incidence and impact on fluid responsiveness.

OBJECTIVE: Incidence of right ventricular (RV) failure in septic shock patients is not well known, and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) could be of limited value. We report the incidence of RV failure in patients with septic shock, its potential impact on the response to fluids, as well as TAPSE values. DESIGN: Ancillary study of the HEMOPRED prospective multicenter study includes patients under mechanical ventilation with circulatory failure. SETTING: This is a multicenter intensive care unit study PATIENTS: Two hundred and eighty-two patients with septic shock were analyzed. Patients were classified in three groups based on central venous pressure (CVP) and RV size (RV/LV end-diastolic area, EDA). In group 1, patients had no RV dilatation (RV/LVEDA < 0.6). In group 2, patients had RV dilatation (RV/LVEDA ≥ 0.6) with a CVP < 8 mmHg (no venous congestion). RV failure was defined in group 3 by RV dilatation and a CVP ≥ 8 mmHg. Pulse pressure variation (PPV) was systematically recorded. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In total, 41% of patients were in group 1, 17% in group 2 and 42% in group 3. A correlation between RV size and CVP was only observed in group 3. Higher RV size was associated with a lower response to passive leg raising for a given PPV. A large overlap of TAPSE values was observed between the 3 groups. 63.5% of patients with RV failure had a normal TAPSE. CONCLUSIONS: RV failure, defined by critical care echocardiography (RV dilatation) and a surrogate of venous congestion (CVP ≥ 8 mmHg), was frequently observed in septic shock patients and negatively associated with response to a fluid challenge despite significant PPV. TAPSE was unable to discriminate patients with or without RV failure.

Assessment of the effects of inspiratory load on right ventricular function.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The right ventricle (RV) plays a pivotal role during respiratory failure because of its high sensitivity to small loading changes during inspiration. Both RVs, preload and afterload, are altered during inspiration, either in spontaneous breathing or during mechanical ventilation. Some clinical situations especially affect RV load during inspiration, for example acute asthma and acute respiratory distress syndrome. The aim of this review is to explain and to summarize the different mechanisms leading to RV failure in these situations. RECENT FINDINGS: Research has recently reemphasized the importance to well known physiology of the venous return which is a contributor of RV preload. Authors recently focused on the mean systemic filling pressure which is one of the determinants of venous return. Venous return may change in opposite direction according to the type of ventilation (spontaneous or assisted). Recent works have also demonstrated the crucial impact of lung inflation and driving pressure on RV afterload, and have confirmed the deleterious effect of severe RV failure, described as acute cor pulmonale. In most situations of RV overload induced by inspiration, significant pulse pressure variations are observed, either called 'pulsus paradoxus' in spontaneously breathing patients or 'reverse pulsus paradoxus' in mechanically ventilated patients. SUMMARY: RV is very sensitive to abnormal inspiration, which is always responsible for an increase in its afterload. Pulse pressure variations, central venous pressure and especially echocardiography may monitor RV function in abnormal clinical situations. The pulmonary artery catheter was also proposed although now less used.

The use of computerized echocardiographic simulation improves the learning curve for transesophageal hemodynamic assessment in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to evaluate the impact of a computerized echocardiographic simulator on the learning curve for transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) hemodynamic assessment of ventilated patients in the ICU. METHODS: We performed a prospective study in two university hospital medical ICUs. Using our previously validated skill assessment scoring system (/40 points), we compared learning curves obtained with (interventional group, n = 25 trainees) and without (control group, n = 31 trainees) use of a simulator in the training. Three evaluations were performed after 1 (M1), 3 (M3) and 6 months (M6) while performing two TEE examinations graded by an expert. Competency was defined as a score >35/40. RESULTS: Competency was achieved after an average of 32.5 ± 10 supervised studies in the control group compared with only 13.6 ± 8.5 in the interventional group (p < 0.0001). At M6, a significant between-group difference in number of supervised TEE was observed (17 [14-28] in the control group vs. 30.5 [21.5-39.5] in the interventional group, p = 0.001). The score was significantly higher in the interventional group at M1 (32.5 [29.25-35.5] vs. 24.75 [20-30.25]; p = 0.0001), M3 (37 [33.5-38.5] vs. 32 [30.37-34.5]; p = 0.0004), but not at M6 (37.5 [33-39] vs. 36 [33.5-37.5] p = 0.24). CONCLUSION: Inclusion of echocardiographic simulator sessions in a standardized curriculum may improve the learning curve for hemodynamic evaluation of ventilated ICU patients.

Initial resuscitation guided by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendations and early echocardiographic assessment of hemodynamics in intensive care unit septic patients: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare therapeutic interventions during initial resuscitation derived from echocardiographic assessment of hemodynamics and from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines in intensive care unit septic patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, descriptive study in two intensive care units of teaching hospitals. METHODS: The number of ventilated patients with septic shock who were studied was 46. Transesophageal echocardiography was first performed (T1<3 hrs after intensive care unit admission) to adapt therapy according to the following predefined hemodynamic profiles: fluid loading (index of collapsibility of the superior vena cava≥36%), inotropic support (left ventricular fractional area change<45% without relevant index of collapsibility of the superior vena cava), or increased vasopressor support (right ventricular systolic dysfunction, unremarkable transesophageal echocardiography study consistent with sustained vasoplegia). Agreement for treatment decision between transesophageal echocardiography and Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines was evaluated. A second transesophageal echocardiography assessment (T2) was performed to validate therapeutic interventions. RESULTS: Although transesophageal echocardiography and Surviving Sepsis Campaign approaches were concordant to manage fluid loading in 32 of 46 patients (70%), echocardiography led to the absence of blood volume expansion in the remaining 14 patients who all had a central venous pressure<12 mm Hg. Accordingly, the agreement was weak between transesophageal echocardiography and Surviving Sepsis Campaign for the decision of fluid loading (κ: 0.37 [0.16;0.59]). With a cut-off value<8 mm Hg for central venous pressure, κ was 0.33 [-0.03;0.69]. Inotropes were prescribed based on transesophageal echocardiography assessment in 14 patients but would have been decided in only four patients according to Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. As a result, the agreement between the two approaches for the decision of inotropic support was weak (κ: 0.23 [-0.04;0.50]). No right ventricular dysfunction was observed. No patient had anemia and only three patients with transesophageal echocardiography documented left ventricular systolic dysfunction had a central venous oxygen saturation<70%. CONCLUSIONS: A weak agreement was found in the prescription of fluid loading and inotropic support derived from early transesophageal echocardiography assessment of hemodynamics and Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines in patients presenting with septic shock.

Noninvasive assessment of cardiac index in healthy volunteers: a comparison between thoracic impedance cardiography and Doppler echocardiography.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic bioimpedance cardiography (ICG) has been proposed as a noninvasive, continuous, operator-independent, and cost-effective method for cardiac output monitoring. In the present study, we compared cardiac index (CI) measurements with ICG (Niccomo device) and transthoracic Doppler echocardiography in resting healthy volunteers undergoing hemodynamic load challenge. METHODS: Twenty-five healthy volunteers (7 men and 18 women, mean age 36 +/- 6 yr, body surface area 1.75 +/- 0.17 m(2)) were investigated during three experimental conditions: baseline, positive end-expiratory pressure + 10 cm H(2)O and lower body positive pressure by means of medical antishock trousers inflated to 30 cm H(2)O in the abdominal compartment. RESULTS: ICG signal quality was >89% over all sets of measurements. A weak but significant relationship was observed between CI(TTE) and CI(ICG) (r = 0.36; P = 0.002). Agreement between both techniques was 0.94 L x min(-1) x m(-2) (95% CI: 0.77-1.11), limits of agreement were -0.47 to 2.35 L x min(-1) x m(-2), and percentage error was 53%. No statistically significant relationships were found between percent changes in CI(TTE) and CI(ICG) after applications of positive end-expiratory pressure + 10 cm H(2)O (r = 0.21; P = 0.31) and medical antishock trousers (r = 0.22; P = 0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Poor correlation and lack of agreement between absolute values of CI measured by ICG and transthoracic Doppler echocardiography were found in resting healthy volunteers. The Niccomo device was also unreliable for monitoring changes in CI during hemodynamic load challenge.

Validation of a skills assessment scoring system for transesophageal echocardiographic monitoring of hemodynamics.

OBJECTIVE: Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is increasingly used in hemodynamic monitoring in the intensive care unit. This paper describes and validates a scoring system for assessing competence in TEE performed by intensivists for this indication. DESIGN: Prospective study over an 18-month period. SETTINGS: Two medical intensive care units. METHODS: The scoring system is used to assess four aspects of TEE: quality of the views (score out of 14); semiquantitative evaluation of respiratory variations in the superior vena cava, valve regurgitation, size of the right ventricle (score out of 10); accuracy of measurement of velocity-time integrals for pulmonary and aortic flow, peak velocity of the E and A waves of mitral flow, left ventricular fractional area change (score out of 8); summary and proposed treatment (score out of 8). The scoring system was validated by using it to assess intensivists after 1 month (M1), 3 months (M3) and 6 months (M6) of training. TEE was done on a mechanically ventilated, hypotensive patient and scored by comparing the intensivist's examination with that of the expert examiner. The intensivists were divided into two groups of theoretical expertise at the start of training. RESULTS: Nineteen intensivists were evaluated. The scores at M1 for level 0 (no experience in echocardiography) and level 1 (previous experience) were, respectively, 18.5 +/- 4 and 24.7 +/- 5. The scores at M1, M3, and M6 were, respectively, 20.4 +/- 5, 30.4 +/- 5 and 35.7 +/- 3. At M6, the intensivists had performed TEE 29 +/- 10 times. CONCLUSION: The scoring system was discriminatory and sensitive to change, and could be used as a tool to assess an intensivist's mastery of TEE.