Evaluation of the knowledge base of French intensivists and anaesthesiologists as concerns the interpretation of respiratory arterial pulse pressure variation

Intraoperative haemodynamic monitoring and management of adults having non-cardiac surgery: Guidelines of the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine in collaboration with the German Association of the Scientific Medical Societies

Haemodynamic monitoring and management are cornerstones of perioperative care. The goal of haemodynamic management is to maintain organ function by ensuring adequate perfusion pressure, blood flow, and oxygen delivery. We here present guidelines on "Intraoperative haemodynamic monitoring and management of adults having non-cardiac surgery" that were prepared by 18 experts on behalf of the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und lntensivmedizin; DGAI).

Are We Always Right? Evaluation of the Performance and Knowledge of the Passive Leg Raise Test in Detecting Volume Responsiveness in Critical Care Patients: A National German Survey

Background: In hemodynamically unstable patients, the passive leg raise (PLR) test is recommended for use as a self-fluid challenge for predicting preload responsiveness. However, to interpret the hemodynamic effects and reliability of the PLR, the method of performing it is of the utmost importance. Our aim was to determine the current practice of the correct application and interpretation of the PLR in intensive care patients. Methods: After ethical approval, we designed a cross-sectional online survey with a short user-friendly online questionnaire. Using a random sample of 1903 hospitals in Germany, 182 hospitals with different levels of care were invited via an email containing a link to the questionnaire. The online survey was conducted between December 2021 and January 2022. All critical care physicians from different medical disciplines were surveyed. We evaluated the correct points of concern for the PLR, including indication, contraindication, choice of initial position, how to interpret and apply the changes in cardiac output, and the limitations of the PLR. Results: A total of 292 respondents participated in the online survey, and 283/292 (97%) of the respondents completed the full survey. In addition, 132/283 (47%) were consultants and 119/283 (42%) worked at a university medical center. The question about the performance of the PLR was answered correctly by 72/283 (25%) of the participants. The limitations of the PLR, such as intra-abdominal hypertension, were correctly selected by 150/283 (53%) of the participants. The correct effect size (increase in stroke volume ≥ 10%) was correctly identified by 217/283 (77%) of the participants. Conclusions: Our results suggest a considerable disparity between the contemporary practice of the correct application and interpretation of the PLR and the practice recommendations from recently published data at German ICUs.

Arterial Pulse Pressure Variation with Mechanical Ventilation

Fluid administration leads to a significant increase in cardiac output in only half of ICU patients. This has led to the concept of assessing fluid responsiveness before infusing fluid. Pulse pressure variation (PPV), which quantifies the changes in arterial pulse pressure during mechanical ventilation, is one of the dynamic variables that can predict fluid responsiveness. The underlying hypothesis is that large respiratory changes in left ventricular stroke volume, and thus pulse pressure, occur in cases of biventricular preload responsiveness. Several studies showed that PPV accurately predicts fluid responsiveness when patients are under controlled mechanical ventilation. Nevertheless, in many conditions encountered in the ICU, the interpretation of PPV is unreliable (spontaneous breathing, cardiac arrhythmias) or doubtful (low Vt). To overcome some of these limitations, researchers have proposed using simple tests such as the Vt challenge to evaluate the dynamic response of PPV. The applicability of PPV is higher in the operating room setting, where fluid strategies made on the basis of PPV improve postoperative outcomes. In medical critically ill patients, although no randomized controlled trial has compared PPV-based fluid management with standard care, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend using fluid responsiveness indices, including PPV, whenever applicable. In conclusion, PPV is useful for managing fluid therapy under specific conditions where it is reliable. The kinetics of PPV during diagnostic or therapeutic tests is also helpful for fluid management.

Cyclic Nonrespiratory Pulse Pressure Oscillations Caused by Atrioventricular Dissociation

Dynamic preload assessment tests, especially pulse pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV), are increasingly acknowledged in mechanically ventilated patients as being predictors of fluid responsiveness. However, the limitations of this method are often neglected or overlooked. One of the prerequisites for PPV and SVV evaluation, in addition to intermittent positive pressure ventilation, is a “regular heart rhythm,” which may be an ambiguous term. We present a case where, despite a regular (paced) rhythm, atrioventricular dissociation was present and resulted in marked PPV elevation, which subsequently disappeared once sinus rhythm returned. Our case indicates that PPV and SVV should be interpreted with caution when atrioventricular dissociation is present.

Prediction of fluid responsiveness: an update

In patients with acute circulatory failure, the decision to give fluids or not should not be taken lightly. The risk of overzealous fluid administration has been clearly established. Moreover, volume expansion does not always increase cardiac output as one expects. Thus, after the very initial phase and/or if fluid losses are not obvious, predicting fluid responsiveness should be the first step of fluid strategy. For this purpose, the central venous pressure as well as other “static” markers of preload has been used for decades, but they are not reliable. Robust evidence suggests that this traditional use should be abandoned. Over the last 15 years, a number of dynamic tests have been developed. These tests are based on the principle of inducing short-term changes in cardiac preload, using heart–lung interactions, the passive leg raise or by the infusion of small volumes of fluid, and to observe the resulting effect on cardiac output. Pulse pressure and stroke volume variations were first developed, but they are reliable only under strict conditions. The variations in vena caval diameters share many limitations of pulse pressure variations. The passive leg-raising test is now supported by solid evidence and is more frequently used. More recently, the end-expiratory occlusion test has been described, which is easily performed in ventilated patients. Unlike the traditional fluid challenge, these dynamic tests do not lead to fluid overload. The dynamic tests are complementary, and clinicians should choose between them based on the status of the patient and the cardiac output monitoring technique. Several methods and tests are currently available to identify preload responsiveness. All have some limitations, but they are frequently complementary. Along with elements indicating the risk of fluid administration, they should help clinicians to take the decision to administer fluids or not in a reasoned way.

Assessment of changes in cardiac index with calibrated pulse contour analysis in cardiac surgery: A prospective observational study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the trending ability of calibrated pulse contour cardiac index (CIPC) monitoring during haemodynamic changes (passive leg raising [PLR] and fluid loading) compared with transpulmonary thermodilution CI (CITD).

METHOD

Seventy-eight mechanically-ventilated patients admitted to intensive care with calibrated pulse contour following cardiac surgery were prospectively included and investigated during PLR, and after fluid loading. Fluid responsiveness was defined as a≥15% CITD increase after a 500ml bolus. Areas under the empiric receiver operating characteristic curves (ROCAUC) for changes in CIPC (ΔCIPC) during PLR to predict fluid responsiveness and after fluid challenge to predict an increase at least 15% in CITD after fluid loading were calculated.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients (71%) were classified as responders, 23 (29%) as non-responders. ROCAUC for ΔCIPC during PLR in predicting fluid responsiveness, its sensitivity, specificity, and percentage of patients within the inconclusive class of response were 0.67 (95% CI=0.55-0.77), 0.76 (95% CI=0.63-0.87), 0.57 (95% CI=0.34-0.77) and 68%, respectively. Bias, precision and limits of agreements and percentage error between CIPC and CITD after fluid challenge were 0.14 (95% CI: 0.08-0.20), 0.26, -0.37 to 0.64 l min(-1)m(-2), and 20%, respectively. The concordance rate was 97% and the polar concordance at 30° was 91%. ROCAUC for ΔCIPC in predicting an increase of at least 15% in CITD after fluid loading was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.76-0.92).

CONCLUSION

Although ΔCIPC after fluid loading could track the direction of changes of CITD and was interchangeable with bolus transpulmonary thermodilution, PLR could not predict fluid responsiveness in cardiac surgery patients.

The use of static and dynamic haemodynamic parameters before volume expansion: A prospective observational study in six French intensive care units

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to determine the use of static and dynamic haemodynamic parameters for predicting fluid responsiveness prior to volume expansion (VE) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, multicentre, observational study in 6 French ICUs in 2012. ICU physicians were audited concerning their use of static and dynamic haemodynamic parameters before each VE performed in patients with SIRS for 6 consecutive weeks.

RESULTS

The median volume of the 566 VEs administered to patients with SIRS was 1000mL [500-1000mL]. Although at least one static or dynamic haemodynamic parameter was measurable before 99% (95% CI, 99%-100%) of VEs, at least one them was used in only 38% (95% CI, 34%-42%) of cases: static parameters in 11% of cases (95% CI, 10%-12%) and dynamic parameters in 32% (95% CI, 30%-34%). Static parameters were never used when uninterpretable. For 15% of VEs (95% CI, 12%-18%), a dynamic parameter was measured in the presence of contraindications. Among dynamic parameters, respiratory variations in arterial pulse pressure (PPV) and passive leg raising (PLR) were measurable and interpretable before 17% and 90% of VEs, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Haemodynamic parameters are underused for predicting fluid responsiveness in current practice. In contrast to static parameters, dynamic parameters are often incorrectly used in the presence of contraindications. PLR is more frequently valid than PPV for predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients.