Reliability of pulse pressure and stroke volume variation in assessing fluid responsiveness in the operating room: a metanalysis and a metaregression.

BACKGROUND: Pulse pressure and stroke volume variation (PPV and SVV) have been widely used in surgical patients as predictors of fluid challenge (FC) response. Several factors may affect the reliability of these indices in predicting fluid responsiveness, such as the position of the patient, the use of laparoscopy and the opening of the abdomen or the chest, combined FC characteristics, the tidal volume (Vt) and the type of anesthesia. METHODS: Systematic review and metanalysis of PPV and SVV use in surgical adult patients. The QUADAS-2 scale was used to assess the risk of bias of included studies. We adopted a metanalysis pooling of aggregate data from 5 subgroups of studies with random effects models using the common-effect inverse variance model. The area under the curve (AUC) of pooled receiving operating characteristics (ROC) curves was reported. A metaregression was performed using FC type, volume, and rate as independent variables. RESULTS: We selected 59 studies enrolling 2,947 patients, with a median of fluid responders of 55% (46-63). The pooled AUC for the PPV was 0.77 (0.73-0.80), with a mean threshold of 10.8 (10.6-11.0). The pooled AUC for the SVV was 0.76 (0.72-0.80), with a mean threshold of 12.1 (11.6-12.7); 19 studies (32.2%) reported the grey zone of PPV or SVV, with a median of 56% (40-62) and 57% (46-83) of patients included, respectively. In the different subgroups, the AUC and the best thresholds ranged from 0.69 and 0.81 and from 6.9 to 11.5% for the PPV, and from 0.73 to 0.79 and 9.9 to 10.8% for the SVV. A high Vt and the choice of colloids positively impacted on PPV performance, especially among patients with closed chest and abdomen, or in prone position. CONCLUSION: The overall performance of PPV and SVV in operating room in predicting fluid responsiveness is moderate, ranging close to an AUC of 0.80 only some subgroups of surgical patients. The grey zone of these dynamic indices is wide and should be carefully considered during the assessment of fluid responsiveness. A high Vt and the choice of colloids for the FC are factors potentially influencing PPV reliability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42022379120), December 2022. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=379120.

Pressure response to fluid challenge administration in hypotensive surgical patients: a post-hoc pharmacodynamic analysis of five datasets.

In this study we evaluated the effect of fluid challenge (FC) administration in elective surgical patients with low or normal blood pressure. Secondarily, we appraised the pharmacodynamic effect of FC in normotensive and hypotensive patients. We assessed five merged datasets of patients with a baseline mean arterial pressure (MAP) above or below 65 mmHg and assessed the changes of systolic, diastolic, mean and dicrotic arterial pressures, dynamic indexes of fluid responsiveness and arterial elastance over a 10-min infusion. The hemodynamic effect was assessed by considering the net area under the curve (AUC), the maximal percentage difference from baseline (dmax), the time when the maximal value was observed (tmax) and change from baseline at 5-min (d5) after FC end. A stroke volume index increase > 10% with respect to the baseline value after FC administration indicated fluid response. Two hundred-seventeen patients were analysed [102 (47.0%) fluid responders]. On average, FC restored a MAP [Formula: see text] 65 mmHg after 5 min. The AUCs and the dmax of pressure variables and arterial elastance of hypotensive patients were all significantly greater than normotensive patients. Pressure variables and arterial elastance changes in the hypotensive group were all significantly higher at d5 as compared to the normotensive group. In hypotensive patients, FC restores a MAP [Formula: see text] 65 mmHg after 5 min from infusion start. The hemodynamic profile of FC in hypotensive and normotensive patients is different; both the magnitude of pressure augmentation and duration is greater in the hypotensive group.

Hemodynamic management of acute brain injury caused by cerebrovascular diseases: a survey of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

BACKGROUND: The optimal hemodynamic targets and management of patients with acute brain injury are not completely elucidated, but recent evidence points to important impact on clinical outcomes. We performed an international survey with the aim to investigate the practice in the hemodynamic targets, monitoring, and management of patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). METHODS: This survey was endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care (ESICM). An electronic questionnaire of 76 questions divided in 4 sections (general information, AIS, ICH, SAH specific questions) was available between January 2022 to March 2022 on the ESICM website. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four healthcare professionals from 36 different countries and at least 98 different institutions answered the survey. Routine echocardiography is routinely performed in 37% of responders in AIS, 34% in ICH and 38% in SAH. Cardiac output monitoring is used in less than 20% of cases by most of the responders. Cardiovascular complications are the main reason for using advanced hemodynamic monitoring, and norepinephrine is the most common drug used to increase arterial blood pressure. Most responders target fluid balance to neutral (62% in AIS, 59% in ICH,44% in SAH), and normal saline is the most common fluid used. Large variability was observed regarding the blood pressure targets. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamic management and treatment in patients with acute brain injury from cerebrovascular diseases vary largely in clinical practice. Further research is required to provide clear guidelines to physicians for the hemodynamic optimization of this group of patients.

Mini fluid chAllenge aNd End-expiratory occlusion test to assess flUid responsiVEness in the opeRating room (MANEUVER study): A multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The fluid challenge response in surgical patients can be predicted by functional haemodynamic tests. Two tests, the mini-fluid challenge (mini-FC) and end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT), have been assessed in a few small single-centre studies with conflicting results. In general, functional haemodynamic tests have not performed reliably in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing laparotomy. OBJECTIVE: This trial is designed to address and compare the reliability of the EEOT and the mini-FC in predicting fluid responsiveness during laparotomy. DESIGN: Prospective, multicentre study. SETTING: Three university hospitals in Italy. PATIENTS: A total of 103 adults patients scheduled for elective laparotomy with invasive arterial monitoring. INTERVENTIONS: The study protocol evaluated the changes in the stroke volume index (SVI) 20 s (EEOT20) and 30 s (EEOT30) after an expiratory hold and after a mini-FC of 100 ml over 1 min. Fluid responsiveness required an increase in SVI at least 10% following 4 ml kg-1 of Ringer's solution fluid challenge infused over 10 min. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Haemodynamic data, including SVI, were obtained from pulse contour analysis. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of the tests were compared with assess fluid responsiveness. RESULTS: Fluid challenge administration induced an increase in SVI at least 10% in 51.5% of patients. The rate of fluid responsiveness was comparable among the three participant centres (P = 0.10). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (95% CI) of the changes in SVI after mini-FC was 0.95 (0.88 to 0.98), sensitivity 98.0% (89.5 to 99.6) and specificity 86.8% (75.1 to 93.4) for a cut-off value of 4% of increase in SVI. This was higher than the SVI changes after EEOT20, 0.67 (0.57 to 0.76) and after EEOT30, 0.73 (0.63 to 0.81). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing laparotomy the mini-FC reliably predicted fluid responsiveness with high-sensitivity and specificity. The EEOT showed poor discriminative value and cannot be recommended for assessment of fluid responsiveness in this surgical setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03808753.