Julien Jabot1, Jean-Louis Teboul, Christian Richard, Xavier Monnet. 1. Service de Réanimation Médicale, AP-HP, Hôpital de Bicêtre, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bicêtre, 78, rue du Général Leclerc, 94270, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: For predicting fluid responsiveness by passive leg raising (PLR), the lower limbs can be elevated at 45 degrees either from the 45 degrees semi-recumbent position (PLR(SEMIREC)) or from the supine position (PLR(SUPINE)). PLR(SUPINE) could have a lower hemodynamic impact than PLR(SEMIREC) since it should not recruit the splanchnic venous reservoir. DESIGN: Prospective study SETTING: A 24-bed medical intensive care unit. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 35 patients with circulatory failure who responded to an initial PLR(SEMIREC) by an increase in cardiac index >/= 10%. INTERVENTIONS: PLR(SEMIREC), a transfer from the semi-recumbent to the supine position and PLR(SUPINE) were performed in all patients in a random order before fluid expansion (500 mL saline). MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: PLR(SEMIREC), supine transfer and PLR(SUPINE) significantly increased the pulse-contour derived cardiac index (PiCCOplus) by 22 (17-28)%, 9 (5-15)% and 10 (7-14)% (P < 0.05 vs. PLR(SEMIREC) for the latter two), respectively. These maneuvers significantly increased the right ventricular end-diastolic area (echocardiography) by 20 (14-29)%, 9 (5-16)% and 10 (5-16)% (P < 0.05 vs. PLR(SEMIREC) for the latter two) and the central venous pressure by 33 (22-50)%, 15 (10-20)% and 20 (15-29)% (P < 0.05 vs. PLR(SEMIREC) for the latter two), respectively. Volume expansion significantly increased cardiac index by 27 (21-38)% and all patients were responders to volume expansion. If an increase in cardiac index >/= 10% is considered as a positive response to PLR(SUPINE), 15 (43%) patients would have been unduly predicted as non-responders to fluid administration by PLR(SUPINE). CONCLUSIONS: PLR(SEMIREC) induces larger increase in cardiac preload than PLR(SUPINE) and may be preferred for predicting fluid responsiveness.
OBJECTIVE: For predicting fluid responsiveness by passive leg raising (PLR), the lower limbs can be elevated at 45 degrees either from the 45 degrees semi-recumbent position (PLR(SEMIREC)) or from the supine position (PLR(SUPINE)). PLR(SUPINE) could have a lower hemodynamic impact than PLR(SEMIREC) since it should not recruit the splanchnic venous reservoir. DESIGN: Prospective study SETTING: A 24-bed medical intensive care unit. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 35 patients with circulatory failure who responded to an initial PLR(SEMIREC) by an increase in cardiac index >/= 10%. INTERVENTIONS: PLR(SEMIREC), a transfer from the semi-recumbent to the supine position and PLR(SUPINE) were performed in all patients in a random order before fluid expansion (500 mL saline). MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: PLR(SEMIREC), supine transfer and PLR(SUPINE) significantly increased the pulse-contour derived cardiac index (PiCCOplus) by 22 (17-28)%, 9 (5-15)% and 10 (7-14)% (P < 0.05 vs. PLR(SEMIREC) for the latter two), respectively. These maneuvers significantly increased the right ventricular end-diastolic area (echocardiography) by 20 (14-29)%, 9 (5-16)% and 10 (5-16)% (P < 0.05 vs. PLR(SEMIREC) for the latter two) and the central venous pressure by 33 (22-50)%, 15 (10-20)% and 20 (15-29)% (P < 0.05 vs. PLR(SEMIREC) for the latter two), respectively. Volume expansion significantly increased cardiac index by 27 (21-38)% and all patients were responders to volume expansion. If an increase in cardiac index >/= 10% is considered as a positive response to PLR(SUPINE), 15 (43%) patients would have been unduly predicted as non-responders to fluid administration by PLR(SUPINE). CONCLUSIONS: PLR(SEMIREC) induces larger increase in cardiac preload than PLR(SUPINE) and may be preferred for predicting fluid responsiveness.
Authors: F Michard; S Boussat; D Chemla; N Anguel; A Mercat; Y Lecarpentier; C Richard; M R Pinsky; J L Teboul Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Vincent Caille; Julien Jabot; Guillaume Belliard; Cyril Charron; François Jardin; Antoine Vieillard-Baron Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Mitchell M Levy; Mitchell P Fink; John C Marshall; Edward Abraham; Derek Angus; Deborah Cook; Jonathan Cohen; Steven M Opal; Jean-Louis Vincent; Graham Ramsay Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2003-03-28 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Xavier Monnet; Mario Rienzo; David Osman; Nadia Anguel; Christian Richard; Michael R Pinsky; Jean-Louis Teboul Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: A Lafanechère; F Pène; C Goulenok; A Delahaye; V Mallet; G Choukroun; J D Chiche; J P Mira; A Cariou Journal: Crit Care Date: 2006 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Brahim Benomar; Alexandre Ouattara; Philippe Estagnasie; Alain Brusset; Pierre Squara Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-07-28 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Fabio Cavallaro; Claudio Sandroni; Cristina Marano; Giuseppe La Torre; Alice Mannocci; Chiara De Waure; Giuseppe Bello; Riccardo Maviglia; Massimo Antonelli Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; François Lemaire; Herwig Gerlach; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jerôme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Matthieu Biais; Lionel Vidil; Philippe Sarrabay; Vincent Cottenceau; Philippe Revel; François Sztark Journal: Crit Care Date: 2009-12-07 Impact factor: 9.097