Effective hemodynamic monitoring.

Hemodynamic monitoring is the centerpiece of patient monitoring in acute care settings. Its effectiveness in terms of improved patient outcomes is difficult to quantify. This review focused on effectiveness of monitoring-linked resuscitation strategies from: (1) process-specific monitoring that allows for non-specific prevention of new onset cardiovascular insufficiency (CVI) in perioperative care. Such goal-directed therapy is associated with decreased perioperative complications and length of stay in high-risk surgery patients. (2) Patient-specific personalized resuscitation approaches for CVI. These approaches including dynamic measures to define volume responsiveness and vasomotor tone, limiting less fluid administration and vasopressor duration, reduced length of care. (3) Hemodynamic monitoring to predict future CVI using machine learning approaches. These approaches presently focus on predicting hypotension. Future clinical trials assessing hemodynamic monitoring need to focus on process-specific monitoring based on modifying therapeutic interventions known to improve patient-centered outcomes.

Changes in pulse pressure variation to assess preload responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with spontaneous breathing activity: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Pulse pressure variation (PPV) is not reliable in predicting preload responsiveness in patients receiving mechanical with spontaneous breathing (SB) activity. We hypothesised that an increase in PPV after a tidal volume (VT) challenge (TVC) or a decrease in PPV during passive leg raising (PLR) can predict preload responsiveness in such cases. METHODS: This prospective observational study was performed in two ICUs and included patients receiving mechanical ventilation with SB, for whom the treating physician decided to test preload responsiveness. Transthoracic echocardiography was used to measure the velocity-time integral (VTI) of the left ventricular outflow tract. Patients exhibiting an increase in VTI ≥12% during PLR were defined as PLR+ patients (or preload responders). Then, a TVC was performed by increasing VT by 2 ml kg-1 predicted body weight (PBW) for 1 min. PPV was recorded at each step. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients (Simplified Acute Physiology Score II: 60 (25) ventilated with a VT of 6.5 (0.8) ml kg-1 PBW, were included. Twenty-two patients were PLR+. The absolute decrease in PPV during PLR and the absolute increase in PPV during TVC discriminated between PLR+ and PLR- patients with area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of 0.78 and 0.73, respectively, and cut-off values of -1% and +2%, respectively. Those AUROC curve values were similar but were significantly different from that of baseline PPV (0.61). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing mechanical ventilation with SB activity, PPV does not predict preload responsiveness. However, the decrease in PPV during PLR and the increase in PPV during a TVC help discriminate preload responders from non-responders with moderate accuracy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04369027 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Increase in Central Venous Pressure During Passive Leg Raising Cannot Detect Preload Unresponsiveness.

OBJECTIVE: By analogy with the classical central venous pressure rules to assess a fluid challenge, we hypothesized that an increase in central venous pressure greater than or equal to 5 cm H2O (i.e., 4 mm Hg) during passive leg raising can predict preload unresponsiveness diagnosed by the absence of increase in velocity-time integral of the left ventricular outflow tract greater than or equal to 10% during the test (negative passive leg raising test). DESIGN AND SETTINGS: Velocity-time integral was measured by transthoracic echocardiography. Central venous pressure and velocity-time integral were measured before and during passive leg raising. PATIENTS: Critically ill patients for whom the physician decided to test preload responsiveness by passive leg raising were prospectively included. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-seven set of measurements were performed in 50 patients. Preload unresponsiveness (negative passive leg raising test) was observed in 32 cases. The changes in central venous pressure during passive leg raising did not differ between positive passive leg raising cases (positive passive leg raising test) and negative passive leg raising test cases (3 ± 2 vs 3 ± 2 mm Hg, respectively) and thus did not predict preload unresponsiveness (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.59). An increase in central venous pressure greater than or equal to 4 mm Hg during passive leg raising was observed in 10 cases of positive passive leg raising test and in 11 cases of negative passive leg raising test. Taking an increase in central venous pressure greater than or equal to 3 or greater than or equal to 5 mm Hg rather than greater than or equal to 4 mm Hg during passive leg raising did not better allow one to identify negative passive leg raising test. CONCLUSIONS: Marked increase in central venous pressure during passive leg raising cannot identify negative passive leg raising test cases and thus preload unresponsiveness. Measurements of cardiac output (or its surrogates) during passive leg raising are, thus, mandatory to appropriately interpret this test.

Effect of an ICU Diary on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms Among Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Keeping a diary for patients while they are in the intensive care unit (ICU) might reduce their posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. Objectives: To assess the effect of an ICU diary on the psychological consequences of an ICU hospitalization. Design, Setting, and Participants: Assessor-blinded, multicenter, randomized clinical trial in 35 French ICUs from October 2015 to January 2017, with follow-up until July 2017. Among 2631 approached patients, 709 adult patients (with 1 family member each) who received mechanical ventilation within 48 hours after ICU admission for at least 2 days were eligible, 657 were randomized, and 339 were assessed 3 months after ICU discharge. Interventions: Patients in the intervention group (n = 355) had an ICU diary filled in by clinicians and family members. Patients in the control group (n = 354) had usual ICU care without an ICU diary. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was significant PTSD symptoms, defined as an Impact Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) score greater than 22 (range, 0-88; a higher score indicates more severe symptoms), measured in patients 3 months after ICU discharge. Secondary outcomes, also measured at 3 months and compared between groups, included significant PTSD symptoms in family members; significant anxiety and depression symptoms in patients and family members, based on a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score greater than 8 for each subscale (range, 0-42; higher scores indicate more severe symptoms; minimal clinically important difference, 2.5); and patient memories of the ICU stay, reported with the ICU memory tool. Results: Among 657 patients who were randomized (median [interquartile range] age, 62 [51-70] years; 126 women [37.2%]), 339 (51.6%) completed the trial. At 3 months, significant PTSD symptoms were reported by 49 of 164 patients (29.9%) in the intervention group vs 60 of 175 (34.3%) in the control group (risk difference, -4% [95% CI, -15% to 6%]; P = .39). The median (interquartile range) IES-R score was 12 (5-25) in the intervention group vs 13 (6-27) in the control group (difference, -1.47 [95% CI, -1.93 to 4.87]; P = .38). There were no significant differences in any of the 6 prespecified comparative secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients who received mechanical ventilation in the ICU, the use of an ICU diary filled in by clinicians and family members did not significantly reduce the number of patients who reported significant PTSD symptoms at 3 months. These findings do not support the use of ICU diaries for preventing PTSD symptoms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02519725.

Norepinephrine in septic shock: when and how much?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Norepinephrine is the first-line agent recommended during resuscitation of septic shock to correct hypotension due to depressed vascular tone. Important clinical issues are the best timing to start norepinephrine, the optimal blood pressure target, and the best therapeutic options to face refractory hypotension when high doses of norepinephrine are required to reach the target. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent literature has reported benefits of early administration of norepinephrine because of the following reasons: profound and durable hypotension is an independent factor of increased mortality, early administration of norepinephrine increases cardiac output, improves microcirculation and avoids fluid overload. Recent data are in favor of targeting a mean arterial pressure of at least 65 mmHg and higher values in case of chronic hypertension. When hypotension is refractory to norepinephrine, it is recommended adding vasopressin, which is relatively deficient during sepsis and acts on other vascular receptors than α1-adernergic receptors. However, increasing the dose of norepinephrine further cannot be discouraged. SUMMARY: Early administration of norepinephrine is beneficial for septic shock patients to restore organ perfusion. The mean arterial pressure target should be individualized. Adding vasopressin is recommended in case of shock refractory to norepinephrine.

Evolving concepts of hemodynamic monitoring for critically ill patients.

The last decades have been characterized by a continuous evolution of hemodynamic monitoring techniques from intermittent toward continuous and real-time measurements and from an invasive towards a less invasive approach. The latter approach uses ultrasounds and pulse contour analysis techniques that have been developed over the last 15 years. During the same period, the concept of prediction of fluid responsiveness has also been developed and dynamic indices such as pulse pressure variation, stroke volume variation, and the real-time response of cardiac output to passive leg raising or to end-expiration occlusion, can be easily obtained and displayed with the minimally invasive techniques. In this article, we review the main hemodynamic monitoring devices currently available with their respective advantages and drawbacks. We also present the current viewpoint on how to choose a hemodynamic monitoring device in the most severely ill patients and especially in patients with circulatory shock.

How to use echocardiography to manage patients with shock?

Echocardiography enables the intensivist to assess the patient with circulatory failure. It allows the clinician to identify rapidly the type and the cause of shock in order to develop an effective management strategy. Important characteristics in the setting of shock are that it is non-invasive and can be rapidly applied. Early and repeated echocardiography is a valuable tool for the management of shock in the intensive care unit. Competency in basic critical care echocardiography is now regarded as a mandatory part of critical care training with clear guidelines available. The majority of pathologies found in shocked patients are readily identified using basic level 2D and M-mode echocardiography. The four core types of shock (cardiogenic, hypovolemic, obstructive, and septic) can readily be identified by echocardiography. Echocardiography can differentiate the different pathologies that may be the cause of each type of shock. More importantly, as a result of more complex and elderly patients, the shock may be multifactorial, such as a combination of cardiogenic and septic shock, which emphasises on the added value of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in such population of patients. In this review we aimed to provide to clinicians a bedside strategy of the use of TTE parameters to manage patients with shock. In the first part of this overview, we detailed the different TTE parameters and how to use them to identify the type of shock. And in the second part, we focused on the use of these parameters to evaluate the effect of treatments, in different types of shock.

Management of cardiogenic shock: a narrative review.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is characterized by low cardiac output and sustained tissue hypoperfusion that may result in end-organ dysfunction and death. CS is associated with high short-term mortality, and its management remains challenging despite recent advances in therapeutic options. Timely diagnosis and multidisciplinary team-based management have demonstrated favourable effects on outcomes. We aimed to review evidence-based practices for managing patients with ischemic and non-ischemic CS, detailing the multi-organ supports needed in this critically ill patient population.

Consistency of data reporting in fluid responsiveness studies in the critically ill setting: the CODEFIRE consensus from the Cardiovascular Dynamic section of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

PURPOSE: To provide consensus recommendations regarding hemodynamic data reporting in studies investigating fluid responsiveness and fluid challenge (FC) use in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: The Executive Committee of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) commissioned and supervised the project. A panel of 18 international experts and a methodologist identified main domains and items from a systematic literature, plus 2 ancillary domains. A three-step Delphi process based on an iterative approach was used to obtain the final consensus. In the Delphi 1 and 2, the items were selected with strong (≥ 80% of votes) or week agreement (70-80% of votes), while the Delphi 3 generated recommended (≥ 90% of votes) or suggested (80-90% of votes) items (RI and SI, respectively). RESULTS: We identified 5 main domains initially including 117 items and the consensus finally resulted in 52 recommendations or suggestions: 18 RIs and 2 SIs statements were obtained for the domain "ICU admission", 11 RIs and 1 SI for the domain "mechanical ventilation", 5 RIs for the domain "reason for giving a FC", 8 RIs for the domain pre- and post-FC "hemodynamic data", and 7 RIs for the domain "pre-FC infused drugs". We had no consensus on the use of echocardiography, strong agreement regarding the volume (4 ml/kg) and the reference variable (cardiac output), while weak on administration rate (within 10 min) of FC in this setting. CONCLUSION: This consensus found 5 main domains and provided 52 recommendations for data reporting in studies investigating fluid responsiveness in ICU patients.

Pulsus paradoxus.

Systolic blood pressure normally falls during quiet inspiration in normal individuals. Pulsus paradoxus is defined as a fall of systolic blood pressure of >10 mmHg during the inspiratory phase. Pulsus paradoxus can be observed in cardiac tamponade and in conditions where intrathoracic pressure swings are exaggerated or the right ventricle is distended, such as severe acute asthma or exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Both the inspiratory decrease in left ventricular stroke volume and the passive transmission to the arterial tree of the inspiratory decrease in intrathoracic pressure contribute to the occurrence of pulsus paradoxus. During cardiac tamponade and acute asthma, biventricular interdependence (series and parallel) plays an important role in the inspiratory decrease in left ventricular stroke volume. Early recognition of pulsus paradoxus in the emergency room can help to diagnose rapidly cardiac tamponade. Measurement of pulsus paradoxus is also useful to assess the severity of acute asthma as well as its response to therapy. Recent development of noninvasive devices capable of automatic calculation and display of arterial pressure variation or derived indices should help improve the assessment of pulsus paradoxus at the bedside.

Hemodynamic monitoring in cardiogenic shock.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening condition characterized by acute end-organ hypoperfusion due to inadequate cardiac output that can result in multiorgan failure, which may lead to death. The diminished cardiac output in CS leads to systemic hypoperfusion and maladaptive cycles of ischemia, inflammation, vasoconstriction, and volume overload. Obviously, the optimal management of CS needs to be readjusted in view of the predominant dysfunction, which may be guided by hemodynamic monitoring. Hemodynamic monitoring enables (1) characterization of the type of cardiac dysfunction and the degree of its severity, (2) very early detection of associated vasoplegia, (3) detection and monitoring of organ dysfunction and tissue oxygenation, and (4) guidance of the introduction and optimization of inotropes and vasopressors as well as the timing of mechanical support. It is now well documented that early recognition, classification, and precise phenotyping via early hemodynamic monitoring (e.g., echocardiography, invasive arterial pressure, and the evaluation of organ dysfunction and parameters derived from central venous catheterization) improve patient outcomes. In more severe disease, advanced hemodynamic monitoring with pulmonary artery catheterization and the use of transpulmonary thermodilution devices is useful to facilitate the right timing of the indication, weaning from mechanical cardiac support, and guidance on inotropic treatments, thus helping to reduce mortality. In this review, we detail the different parameters relevant to each monitoring approach and the way they can be used to support optimal management of these patients.

Cardio-respiratory interactions in acute asthma.

Asthma encompasses of respiratory symptoms that occur intermittently and with varying intensity accompanied by reversible expiratory airflow limitation. In acute exacerbations, it can be life-threatening due to its impact on ventilatory mechanics. Moreover, asthma has significant effects on the cardiovascular system, primarily through heart-lung interaction-based mechanisms. Dynamic hyperinflation and increased work of breathing caused by a sharp drop in pleural pressure, can affect cardiac function and cardiac output through different mechanisms. These mechanisms include an abrupt increase in venous return, elevated right ventricular afterload and interdependence between the left and right ventricle. Additionally, Pulsus paradoxus, which reflects the maximum consequences of this heart lung interaction when intrathoracic pressure swings are exaggerated, may serve as a convenient bedside tool to assess the severity of acute asthma acute exacerbation and its response to therapy.

The Eight Unanswered and Answered Questions about the Use of Vasopressors in Septic Shock.

Septic shock is mainly characterized-in addition to hypovolemia-by vasoplegia as a consequence of a release of inflammatory mediators. Systemic vasodilatation due to depressed vascular tone results in arterial hypotension, which induces or worsens organ hypoperfusion. Accordingly, vasopressor therapy is mandatory to correct hypotension and to reverse organ perfusion due to hypotension. Currently, two vasopressors are recommended to be used, norepinephrine and vasopressin. Norepinephrine, an α1-agonist agent, is the first-line vasopressor. Vasopressin is suggested to be added to norepinephrine in cases of inadequate mean arterial pressure instead of escalating the doses of norepinephrine. However, some questions about the bedside use of these vasopressors remain. Some of these questions have been well answered, some of them not clearly addressed, and some others not yet answered. Regarding norepinephrine, we firstly reviewed the arguments in favor of the choice of norepinephrine as a first-line vasopressor. Secondly, we detailed the arguments found in the recent literature in favor of an early introduction of norepinephrine. Thirdly, we reviewed the literature referring to the issue of titrating the doses of norepinephrine using an individualized resuscitation target, and finally, we addressed the issue of escalation of doses in case of refractory shock, a remaining unanswered question. For vasopressin, we reviewed the rationale for adding vasopressin to norepinephrine. Then, we discussed the optimal time for vasopressin administration. Subsequently, we addressed the issue of the optimal vasopressin dose, and finally we discussed the best strategy to wean these two vasopressors when combined.

The place of new antibiotics for Gram-negative bacterial infections in intensive care: report of a consensus conference.

INTRODUCTION: New beta-lactams, associated or not with beta-lactamase inhibitors (NBs/BIs), can respond to the spread of carbapenemase-producing enterobacteriales and nonfermenting carbapenem-resistant bacteria. The risk of emergence of resistance to these NBs/BIs makes guidelines necessary. The SRLF organized a consensus conference in December 2022. METHODS: An ad hoc committee without any conflict of interest (CoI) with the subject identified the molecules (ceftolozane-tazobactam, ceftazidime-avibactam, imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam, meropenem-vaborbactam and cefiderocol); defined 6 generic questions; drew up a list of subquestions according to the population, intervention, comparison and outcomes (PICO) model; and reviewed the literature using predefined keywords. The quality of the data was assessed using the GRADE methodology. Seven experts in the field proposed their own answers to the questions in a public session and answered questions from the jury (a panel of 10 critical-care physicians without any CoI) and the public. The jury then met alone for 48 h to write its recommendations. Due to the frequent lack of powerful studies that have used clinically important criteria of judgment, the recommendations were formulated as expert opinions as often as necessary. RESULTS: The jury provided 17 statements answering 6 questions: (1) Is there a place in the ICU for the probabilistic use of new NBs/IBs active against Gram-negative bacteria? (2) In the context of documented infections with sensitivity to several of these molecules, are there pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, ecological or medico-economic elements for prioritization? (3) What are the possible combinations with these molecules and in what context? (4) Should we integrate these new molecules into a carbapenem-sparing strategy? (5) What pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data are available to optimize their mode of administration in critically ill patients? (6) What are the dosage adaptations in cases of renal insufficiency, hepatocellular insufficiency or obesity? CONCLUSION: These recommendations should optimize the use of NBs/BIs in ICU patients.

Combining fluids and vasopressors: A magic potion?

Early detection and prompt reversal of sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion are key elements while treating patients with septic shock. Fluid administration is widely accepted as the first-line therapy followed by vasopressor use in persistently hypotensive patients or in those with insufficient arterial pressure to ensure adequate tissue perfusion. Recent evidence suggests a beneficial effect of combining fluids with vasopressors in the early phase of sepsis. Compared with fluids alone, combining fluids and vasopressors increases mean systemic pressure and venous return and corrects hypotension better. This approach also limits fluid overload, which is an independent factor of poor outcomes in sepsis. It produces less hemodilution than fluids alone. As a consequence of these effects, combined treatment may improve outcomes in septic shock patients.

Dynamic changes of pulse pressure but not of pulse pressure variation during passive leg raising predict preload responsiveness in critically ill patients with spontaneous breathing activity.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the changes in arterial pulse pressure (PP) and/or pulse pressure variation (PPV) during passive leg raising (PLR) can be used to evaluate preload responsiveness in patients with spontaneous breathing activity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients ventilated with pressure support mode or totally spontaneously breathing were prospectively included. The values of PP and PPV were recorded before and at the end of PLR. The changes in cardiac index (CI) or the velocity-time integral (VTI) of the left ventricular outflow tract during PLR were tracked by the pulse contour analysis or transthoracic echocardiography. Patients exhibiting an increase in CI ≥ 10% or VTI ≥ 12% during PLR were defined as preload responders. RESULTS: Among 33 patients included, 28 (80%) received norepinephrine and 14 were preload responders. The increase in PP > 2 mmHg in absolute value (4% in percentage) during PLR (PLRPP) predicted preload responsiveness with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) of 0.76 ± 0.09 (p = 0.003 vs. AUROC of 0.5). The changes in PPV during PLR, however, failed to predict preload responsiveness (p = 0.82 vs. AUROC of 0.5). CONCLUSION: In patients with full spontaneous breathing activity, PLR-induced changes in PP had a fair ability to assess preload responsiveness even when norepinephrine was administered. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04369027).