Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Users Online: 153

 

Home  | About Us | Editors | Search | Ahead Of Print | Current Issue | Archives | Submit Article | Instructions | Subscribe | Contacts | Login 
     


 
 
Table of Contents
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 163-165

Data availability and feasibility of various techniques to predict response to volume expansion in critically ill patients


1 Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Intermountain Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
2 Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Intermountain Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

Date of Web Publication12-Sep-2017

Correspondence Address:
Michael J Lanspa
Intermountain Medical Center, Shock-Trauma Intensive Care Unit, 5121 S. Cottonwood Street, Murray, UT 84107
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2229-5151.214412

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Objective: The accuracy of various techniques to predict response to volume expansion in shock has been studied, but less well known is how feasible these techniques are in the ICU.
Methods: This is a prospective observation single-center study of inpatients from a mixed profile ICU who received volume expansion. At time of volume expansion, we determined whether a particular technique to predict response was feasible, according to rules developed from available literature and nurse assessment.
Results: We studied 214 volume expansions in 97 patients. The most feasible technique was central venous pressure (50%), followed by vena cava collapsibility, (47%) passive leg raise (42%), and stroke volume variation (22%). Aortic velocity variation, and pulse pressure variation, and were rarely feasible (1% each). In 37% of volume expansions, no technique that we assessed was feasible.
Conclusions: Techniques to predict response to volume expansion are infeasible in many patients in shock.

Keywords: Fluid, passive leg raise, shock


How to cite this article:
Lanspa MJ, Briggs BJ, Hirshberg EL, Pratt CM, Grissom CK, Brown SM. Data availability and feasibility of various techniques to predict response to volume expansion in critically ill patients. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci 2017;7:163-5

How to cite this URL:
Lanspa MJ, Briggs BJ, Hirshberg EL, Pratt CM, Grissom CK, Brown SM. Data availability and feasibility of various techniques to predict response to volume expansion in critically ill patients. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci [serial online] 2017 [cited 2020 May 30];7:163-5. Available from: http://www.ijciis.org/text.asp?2017/7/3/163/214412


   Introduction Top


Volume expansion is a mainstay of treatment for shock. Inappropriate volume expansion results in pulmonary edema, prolonged time on a ventilator, and increased mortality. One technique to predict the success of volume expansion is measurement of central venous pressure (CVP). This technique, although commonplace, has poor predictive ability.[1] Newer techniques may offer superior predictive ability,[2],[3],[4],[5],[6] but may be applied only in selected patient populations or may not function in certain physiologic states.[3],[5],[7]

While several investigations compare the accuracy of these techniques,[4],[6] less known is how applicable they are in a general Intensive Care Unit (ICU) population. The passive leg raise (PLR) may be inapplicable in a patient with abdominal hypertension.[8] Similarly, echocardiography may be impossible in someone with left-sided chest trauma.

We wanted to determine the feasibility of various techniques in the critically ill population receiving volume expansion.


   Methods Top


This prospective observational cohort study was Institutional Review Board-approved with waiver of informed consent. We enrolled patients over a 6-month period from Intermountain Medical Center's Shock-Trauma ICU, a tertiary care, academic 24-bed ICU that routinely admits medical, surgical, and trauma patients in shock. Clinicians at this ICU use multiple techniques to predict successful volume expansion.

We studied patients who received a clinically indicated volume expansion for shock. At the time of the volume expansion, the nurse recorded patient's heart rhythm and whether there was sufficient time (4 min) to delay the volume expansion to perform a PLR. We recorded specific clinical states (receipt of ventilation, abdominal hypertension, etc.) that affect the accuracy of various techniques. We evaluated whether the following could have been assessed: PLR by noninvasive cardiac output monitor, vena cava collapsibility (VCC) or aortic velocity variation (AoVV) by ultrasound, stroke volume variation (SVV) by pulse contour analysis, CVP, and pulse pressure variation (PPV). These techniques were not actually performed. We a priori defined indications for each technique for predicting response to volume expansion based on whether it was feasible [Table 1]. We report percentages using simple descriptive statistics.
Table 1: List of techniques to predict response to volume expansion and their indications, based on review of published evidence at time of writing this manuscript

Click here to view



   Results Top


We studied 214 volume expansions in 97 patients. Half of the patients had septic shock. Ten percent of patients had irregular heart rhythms at the time of volume expansion, and 38% were receiving mechanical ventilation. No patient had active airways obstruction, and only 3% of patients had acute respiratory distress syndrome. An arterial catheter was present in 47% of patients, and a central venous catheter in 42%. In 33% of volume expansions, the nurse indicated insufficient time (4 min) to perform a PLR before administering the volume expansion. In 30% of volume expansions, patients were receiving a vasopressor or an inotrope.

The most feasible technique was CVP (50% of volume expansions), followed by VCC (47%) and PLR (42%). Feasibility of CVP was essentially an observation that central venous catheters were absent in about 50% of volume expansions. Although nursing perception of insufficient time may be subjective, PLR was infeasible for other reasons, 34% of the time [Table 1]. AoVV, PPV, and SVV were rarely feasible (1.4%, 0.9%, 0.9%, respectively) because passive ventilation is uncommon in the study ICU.

In 37% of volume expansions, no single technique was feasible. In 63% of volume expansions, either PLR or VCC was feasible.


   Discussion Top


Before this study, it was uncertain how frequently a technique to predict volume expansion would be both available and feasible in a general ICU. For example, CVP, which has poor accuracy in predicting volume expansion,[1] appears to be the most feasible technique, while SVV, which has excellent accuracy in specific physiologic states,[7] is infeasible for most patients.

PLR has some renewed enthusiasm in predicting response to volume expansion because it is applicable in the setting of heart arrhythmia and spontaneously breathing.[9] However, the maneuver requires two measurements of cardiac output, both of which require 2 min of equilibration. The time for the PLR measurement could be halved if the patient had a semi-recumbent baseline position, but this was not standard at the study hospital.

This study has several limitations. This study did not necessarily perform all the various techniques for each volume expansion and therefore cannot compare diagnostic accuracy between different techniques. The reliance on nurse participation could cause selection bias. We omitted several techniques: lithium dilution SVV, pulmonary artery catheter pressure, and continuous cardiac output monitor. We excluded these techniques because our ICU does not routinely use them. Although we based our rules for data availability and feasibility on published evidence, there may be expert disagreement. An example is that some may consider PPV applicable in spontaneously breathing mechanically ventilated patients.[10] We excluded this application because it requires a ventilator setting that we do not routinely use and defines successful volume expansion as a change in arterial pressure rather than cardiac output.


   Conclusion Top


Techniques to predict successful volume expansion are infeasible in many patients in shock.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Marik PE, Baram M, Vahid B. Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares. Chest 2008;134:172-8.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
Monnet X, Rienzo M, Osman D, Anguel N, Richard C, Pinsky MR, et al. Passive leg raising predicts fluid responsiveness in the critically ill. Crit Care Med 2006;34:1402-7.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.
Barbier C, Loubières Y, Schmit C, Hayon J, Ricôme JL, Jardin F, et al. Respiratory changes in inferior vena cava diameter are helpful in predicting fluid responsiveness in ventilated septic patients. Intensive Care Med 2004;30:1740-6.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Hofer CK, Senn A, Weibel L, Zollinger A. Assessment of stroke volume variation for prediction of fluid responsiveness using the modified FloTrac and PiCCOplus system. Crit Care 2008;12:R82.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.
Feissel M, Michard F, Mangin I, Ruyer O, Faller JP, Teboul JL. Respiratory changes in aortic blood velocity as an indicator of fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients with septic shock. Chest 2001;119:867-73.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.
Monnet X, Bleibtreu A, Ferré A, Dres M, Gharbi R, Richard C, et al. Passive leg-raising and end-expiratory occlusion tests perform better than pulse pressure variation in patients with low respiratory system compliance. Crit Care Med 2012;40:152-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Biais M, Nouette-Gaulain K, Cottenceau V, Revel P, Sztark F. Uncalibrated pulse contour-derived stroke volume variation predicts fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients undergoing liver transplantation. Br J Anaesth2008;101:761-8.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.
Mahjoub Y, Touzeau J, Airapetian N, Lorne E, Hijazi M, Zogheib E, et al. The passive leg-raising maneuver cannot accurately predict fluid responsiveness in patients with intra-abdominal hypertension. Crit Care Med 2010;38:1824-9.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]    
9.
Monnet X, Teboul JL. Passive leg raising. Intensive Care Med 2008;34:659-63.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]    
10.
Grassi P, Lo Nigro L, Battaglia K, Barone M, Testa F, Berlot G, et al. Pulse pressure variation as a predictor of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with spontaneous breathing activity: A pragmatic observational study. HSR Proc Intensive Care Cardiovasc Anesth 2013;5:98-109.  Back to cited text no. 10
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]


This article has been cited by
1 The cardiovascular effects of crystalloid administration in endoscopy patients
Brian S Cowie,Aisling B Buckley,Roman Kluger,Tuong D Phan
Anaesthesia and Intensive Care. 2019; 47(1): 45
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
   Methods
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1332    
    Printed38    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded49    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal