| Literature DB >> 22400109 |
Justin C Mandeville1, Claire L Colebourn.
Abstract
Introduction. We systematically evaluated the use of transthoracic echocardiography in the assessment of dynamic markers of preload to predict fluid responsiveness in the critically ill adult patient. Methods. Studies in the critically ill using transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) to predict a response in stroke volume or cardiac output to a fluid load were selected. Selection was limited to English language and adult patients. Studies on patients with an open thorax or abdomen were excluded. Results. The predictive power of diagnostic accuracy of inferior vena cava diameter and transaortic Doppler signal changes with the respiratory cycle or passive leg raising in mechanically ventilated patients was strong throughout the articles reviewed. Limitations of the technique relate to patient tolerance of the procedure, adequacy of acoustic windows, and operator skill. Conclusions. Transthoracic echocardiographic techniques accurately predict fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients. Discriminative power is not affected by the technique selected.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22400109 PMCID: PMC3286892 DOI: 10.1155/2012/513480
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Crit Care Res Pract ISSN: 2090-1305
Figure 1The physiological explanation for the changes in stroke volume and IVC diameter caused by mechanical ventilation. RV right ventricle, LV left ventricle, SVmax and SVmin maximum and minimum stroke volume, RAP right atrial pressure, IAP intraabdominal pressure, IVC D max and IVCmin maximum and minimum inferior vena cava diameter during the cycle. aThe pulmonary transit time represents the time taken for blood to travel through the pulmonary circulation. bSV is the product of the velocity-time integral (area under the Doppler signal curve) and the diameter of the vessel at the point the reading was taken.
Figure 2Citation filtering process.
Modified STARD criteria assessment [10].
| Criteria | Specific question |
|---|---|
| 1 | Was the study population described (inclusion and exclusion criteria included)? |
| 2 | Is there a description of the sampling (e.g., consecutive patients, if not why not?)? |
| 3 | Is it clear whether the tests were done prospectively or retrospectively? |
| 4 | Is there a description of the response test (including fluid bolus)? |
| 5 | Is there a detailed description of the equipment and techniques used in the tests? |
| 6 | Is the rationale for cut-offs and ranges given? |
| 7 | Is there detail of the operators in terms of number and training? |
| 8 | Is there detail of what information was available to the readers of the response ? |
| 9 | Were the statistical methods for comparing diagnostic accuracy detailed? |
| 10 | Are there details of tests of reproducibility? |
| 11 | Are the patient demographics and comorbidities shown? |
| 12 | Is there detail of those meeting inclusion criteria but not undergoing either test? |
| 13 | Was there detail of the interval between predictive and response tests? |
| 14 | Is there a report cross-tabulating predictive and response test results? |
| 15 | Is diagnostic accuracy described, including likelihood ratios or data to calculate them? |
| 16 | Is there mention of how missing values were dealt with (i.e., unobtainable values)? |
| 17 | Are the estimates of accuracy variability between operators/readers included? |
| 18 | Are there estimates of reproducibility? |
| 19 | Is the clinical applicability of the study findings discussed? |
Characteristics of studies selected.
| Study | Technique | Patient group | Selection | Ventilation | Rhythm | Volume and type | Time (min) | Response criteria |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barbier et al. [ | IVC DI | Mixed ICU | Shock (sepsis) and acute lung injury | All mand | Any | 7 mL/kg colloid | 30 | >15% CO TTE |
| Feissel et al. [ | Δ | Medical ICU | Shock (sepsis) | All mand | Any | 8 mL/kg colloid | 20 | >15% CO TTE |
| Lamia et al. [ | PLR | Medical ICU | Shock (sepsis or hypovolaemia) | All spont | Regular SR, or AF | 500 mL crystalloid | 15 | >15% SV TTE |
| Maizel et al. [ | PLR | Mixed ICU | Shock (unspecified) | All spont | Regular SR | 500 mL crystalloid | 15 | >12% CO TTE |
| Biais et al. [ | PLR | Surgical ICU | Shock (sepsis or haemorrhage) | All spont | Any | 500 crystalloid | 15 | >15% SV TTE |
| Biais wt al. [ | SVV | Surgical ICU | Post-operative (liver surgery) | All mand | Regular SR | 20 mL/kg/m2 colloid | 20 | >15% CO TTE |
| Thiel et al. [ | PLR | Medical ICU | Shock (unspecified) | Mixed | Any | 500 mL crystalloid or colloid | Unspec | >15% SV TTE |
| Préau et al. [ | PLR | Medical ICU | Shock (sepsis or acute pancreatitis) | All spont | Regular SR | 500 mL colloid | <30 | >15% SV TTE |
Selection: inclusion criteria summary, PLR: passive leg raising, spont: spontaneous respiratory effort whether or not on mechanical ventilation, mand: ventilator giving mandatory breaths only and patient fully adapted to ventilator, SR: sinus rhythm, AF: atrial fibrillation, TTE: transthoracic echocardiography, SV: stroke volume, CO: cardiac output, ΔD IVC change in IVC diameter adjusted by the mean (see text), IVC DI: IVC distensibility index (see text), and unspec: unspecified time.
Collated results of all included studies.
| Study | Number of tests | Predictive test | Threshold | Resp % | Intra-obs % | Inter-obs % | AUC (ROC) | Sens | Spec | PLiR | NLiR | PPV | NPV |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lamia et al. [ | 24 | PLR SVI or CO rise | ≥12.5% | 54 | 2.8 ± 2.2 | 3.2 ± 2.5 | 0.96 ± 0.04 | 77 | 99 | 77 | 0.23 | 0.79 | ||
|
Maizel et al. [ | 34 | PLR CO rise | ≥12% | 50 | 4.2 ± 3.9 | 6.5 ± 5.5 | 0.90 ± 0.06 | 63 | 89 | 5.73 | 0.42 | 85 | 76 | 0.75 |
| PLR SV rise | ≥12% | 4.2 ± 3.9 | 6.2 ± 4.2 | 0.95 ± 0.04 | 69 | 89 | 6.27 | 0.35 | 83 | 73 | 0.57 | |||
| Biais et al. [ | 34 | PLR SV rise | ≥13% | 67 | SI | 0.96 ± 0.03 | 100 | 80 | 5.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| Thiel et al. [ | 102 | PLR SV rise | ≥15% | 46 | SI | 0.89 ± 0.04 | 81 | 93 | 11.57 | 0.20 | 91 | 85 | ||
|
Préau et al. [ | 34 | PLR SV rise | ≥10% | 41 | SI | 0.90 ± 0.04 | 86 | 90 | 8.60 | 0.16 | 86 | 90 | 0.74 | |
| PLR dVF rise | ≥8% | 0.93 ± 0.04 | 86 | 80 | 4.30 | 0.18 | 75 | 89 | 0.58 | |||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
| Biais et al. [ | 30 | SVV | ≥9% | 47 | SI | 0.95 | 100 | 88 | 8.33 | 0.00 | 0.80 | |||
|
| ||||||||||||||
| Barbier et al. [ | 23 | IVC DI | ≥18% | 41 | 8.7 ± 9 | 6.3 ± 8 | 0.91 ± 0.07 | 90 | 90 | 9.00 | 0.11 | 0.90 | ||
| Feissel et al. [ | 39 | Δ | ≥12% | 41 | 3 ± 4 | SI | 93 | 92 | 0.82 | |||||
Threshold: cut-off between responders and nonresponders, Resp: proportion responding to fluid load, Intra-obs: intraobserver variability, Inter-obs: interobserver variability, AUC(ROC): area under the receiver-operator curve, Sens: Sensitivity, Spec: Specificity, PLiR: positive likelihood ratio, NLiR: negative likelihood ratio, PPV: positive predictive value, NPV: negative predictive value, r: correlation coefficient, PLR: Passive leg raising, SI: single investigator/reader, CO: cardiac output, SV: stroke volume, dVF: change in femoral artery velocity as measured by Doppler, SVI: stroke volume index, LVEDAI: left ventricular end-diastolic area, E/E : mitral E-wave velocity/mitral annulus E velocity measured by tissue Doppler, ΔD IVC: change in IVC diameter (D) as calculated by (D max − D min)/0.5(D max + D min), IVC DI: IVC distensibility index calculated by (D max − D min)/D min.
Figure 3The stages of the two different methods of passive leg raising. CO cardiac output, SV stroke volume. aMeasurements at this stage were not taken in one study (Maizel).