Literature DB >> 17080001

Cardiac filling pressures are not appropriate to predict hemodynamic response to volume challenge.

David Osman1, Christophe Ridel, Patrick Ray, Xavier Monnet, Nadia Anguel, Christian Richard, Jean-Louis Teboul.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Values of central venous pressure of 8-12 mm Hg and of pulmonary artery occlusion pressure of 12-15 mm Hg have been proposed as volume resuscitation targets in recent international guidelines on management of severe sepsis. By analyzing a large number of volume challenges, our aim was to test the significance of the recommended target values in terms of prediction of volume responsiveness.
DESIGN: Retrospective study.
SETTING: A 24-bed medical intensive care unit. PATIENTS: All consecutive septic patients monitored with a pulmonary artery catheter who underwent a volume challenge between 2001 and 2004. INTERVENTION: None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 150 volume challenges in 96 patients were reviewed. In 65 instances, the volume challenge resulted in an increase in cardiac index of > or =15% (responders). The pre-infusion central venous pressure was similar in responders and nonresponders (8 +/- 4 vs. 9 +/- 4 mm Hg). The pre-infusion pulmonary artery occlusion pressure was slightly lower in responders (10 +/- 4 vs. 11 +/- 4 mm Hg, p < .05). However, the significance of pulmonary artery occlusion pressure to predict fluid responsiveness was poor and similar to that of central venous pressure, as indicated by low values of areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (0.58 and 0.63, respectively). A central venous pressure of <8 mm Hg and a pulmonary artery occlusion pressure of <12 mm Hg predicted volume responsiveness with a positive predictive value of only 47% and 54%, respectively. With the knowledge of a low stroke volume index (<30 mL.m), their positive predictive values were still unsatisfactory: 61% and 69%, respectively. When the combination of central venous pressure and pulmonary artery occlusion pressure was considered instead of either pressure alone, the degree of prediction of volume responsiveness was not improved.
CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that cardiac filling pressures are poor predictors of fluid responsiveness in septic patients. Therefore, their use as targets for volume resuscitation must be discouraged, at least after the early phase of sepsis has concluded.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17080001     DOI: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000249851.94101.4F

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  135 in total

1.  SvO2 to monitor resuscitation of septic patients: let's just understand the basic physiology.

Authors:  Jean-Louis Teboul; Olfa Hamzaoui; Xavier Monnet
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2011-11-07       Impact factor: 9.097

2.  Pulse-plethysmographic variables in hemodynamic assessment during mannitol infusion.

Authors:  M Radhakrishnan; K Mohanvelu; S Veena; G Sripathy; G S Umamaheswara Rao
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2012-02-09       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 3.  Pulse pressure variation: where are we today?

Authors:  Maxime Cannesson; Mateo Aboy; Christoph K Hofer; Mohamed Rehman
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 2.502

4.  The effects of vasoactive drugs on pulse pressure and stroke volume variation in postoperative ventilated patients.

Authors:  Mehrnaz Hadian; Donald A Severyn; Michael R Pinsky
Journal:  J Crit Care       Date:  2010-10-30       Impact factor: 3.425

Review 5.  [Central venous pressure. Validity, informative value and correct measurement].

Authors:  W Schummer
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 1.041

Review 6.  [Cardiac preload and central venous pressure].

Authors:  A Weyland; F Grüne
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 1.041

7.  Prediction of volume responsiveness using pleth variability index in patients undergoing cardiac surgery after cardiopulmonary bypass.

Authors:  Sebastian Haas; Constantin Trepte; Martin Hinteregger; Rebecca Fahje; Bjoern Sill; Lena Herich; Daniel A Reuter
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2012-05-16       Impact factor: 2.078

8.  What is your strategy for fluid management?

Authors:  Young-Cheol Woo
Journal:  Korean J Anesthesiol       Date:  2012-04-23

9.  Validity of Pulse Pressure Variation (PPV) Compared with Stroke Volume Variation (SVV) in Predicting Fluid Responsiveness.

Authors:  Abhishek Rathore; Shalendra Singh; Ritesh Lamsal; Priya Taank; Debashish Paul
Journal:  Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim       Date:  2017-08-01

10.  Applying dynamic parameters to predict hemodynamic response to volume expansion in spontaneously breathing patients with septic shock.

Authors:  Michael J Lanspa; Colin K Grissom; Eliotte L Hirshberg; Jason P Jones; Samuel M Brown
Journal:  Shock       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 3.454

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.