PURPOSE: To assess whether invasive and non-invasive blood pressure (BP) monitoring allows the identification of patients who have responded to a fluid challenge, i.e., who have increased their cardiac output (CO). METHODS: Patients with signs of circulatory failure were prospectively included. Before and after a fluid challenge, CO and the mean of four intra-arterial and oscillometric brachial cuff BP measurements were collected. Fluid responsiveness was defined by an increase in CO ≥10 or ≥15% in case of regular rhythm or arrhythmia, respectively. RESULTS: In 130 patients, the correlation between a fluid-induced increase in pulse pressure (Δ500mlPP) and fluid-induced increase in CO was weak and was similar for invasive and non-invasive measurements of BP: r² = 0.31 and r² = 0.29, respectively (both p < 0.001). For the identification of responders, invasive Δ500mlPP was associated with an area under the receiver-operating curve (AUC) of 0.82 (0.74-0.88), similar (p = 0.80) to that of non-invasive Δ500mlPP [AUC of 0.81 (0.73-0.87)]. Outside large gray zones of inconclusive values (5-23% for invasive Δ500mlPP and 4-35% for non-invasive Δ500mlPP, involving 35 and 48% of patients, respectively), the detection of responsiveness or unresponsiveness to fluid was reliable. Cardiac arrhythmia did not impair the performance of invasive or non-invasive Δ500mlPP. Other BP-derived indices did not outperform Δ500mlPP. CONCLUSIONS: As evidenced by large gray zones, BP-derived indices poorly reflected fluid responsiveness. However, in our deeply sedated population, a high increase in invasive pulse pressure (>23%) or even in non-invasive pulse pressure (>35%) reliably detected a response to fluid. In the absence of a marked increase in pulse pressure (<4-5%), a response to fluid was unlikely.
PURPOSE: To assess whether invasive and non-invasive blood pressure (BP) monitoring allows the identification of patients who have responded to a fluid challenge, i.e., who have increased their cardiac output (CO). METHODS:Patients with signs of circulatory failure were prospectively included. Before and after a fluid challenge, CO and the mean of four intra-arterial and oscillometric brachial cuff BP measurements were collected. Fluid responsiveness was defined by an increase in CO ≥10 or ≥15% in case of regular rhythm or arrhythmia, respectively. RESULTS: In 130 patients, the correlation between a fluid-induced increase in pulse pressure (Δ500mlPP) and fluid-induced increase in CO was weak and was similar for invasive and non-invasive measurements of BP: r² = 0.31 and r² = 0.29, respectively (both p < 0.001). For the identification of responders, invasive Δ500mlPP was associated with an area under the receiver-operating curve (AUC) of 0.82 (0.74-0.88), similar (p = 0.80) to that of non-invasive Δ500mlPP [AUC of 0.81 (0.73-0.87)]. Outside large gray zones of inconclusive values (5-23% for invasive Δ500mlPP and 4-35% for non-invasive Δ500mlPP, involving 35 and 48% of patients, respectively), the detection of responsiveness or unresponsiveness to fluid was reliable. Cardiac arrhythmia did not impair the performance of invasive or non-invasive Δ500mlPP. Other BP-derived indices did not outperform Δ500mlPP. CONCLUSIONS: As evidenced by large gray zones, BP-derived indices poorly reflected fluid responsiveness. However, in our deeply sedated population, a high increase in invasive pulse pressure (>23%) or even in non-invasive pulse pressure (>35%) reliably detected a response to fluid. In the absence of a marked increase in pulse pressure (<4-5%), a response to fluid was unlikely.
Authors: J L Teboul; M R Pinsky; A Mercat; N Anguel; G Bernardin; J M Achard; T Boulain; C Richard Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Maxime Cannesson; Yannick Le Manach; Christoph K Hofer; Jean Pierre Goarin; Jean-Jacques Lehot; Benoît Vallet; Benoît Tavernier Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Manuel Ignacio Monge García; Pedro Guijo González; Manuel Gracia Romero; Anselmo Gil Cano; Chris Oscier; Andrew Rhodes; Robert Michael Grounds; Maurizio Cecconi Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Maurizio Cecconi; Glenn Hernandez; Martin Dunser; Massimo Antonelli; Tim Baker; Jan Bakker; Jacques Duranteau; Sharon Einav; A B Johan Groeneveld; Tim Harris; Sameer Jog; Flavia R Machado; Mervyn Mer; M Ignacio Monge García; Sheila Nainan Myatra; Anders Perner; Jean-Louis Teboul; Jean-Louis Vincent; Daniel De Backer Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Giuseppe Citerio; Jan Bakker; Matteo Bassetti; Dominique Benoit; Maurizio Cecconi; J Randall Curtis; Glenn Hernandez; Margaret Herridge; Samir Jaber; Michael Joannidis; Laurent Papazian; Mark Peters; Pierre Singer; Martin Smith; Marcio Soares; Antoni Torres; Antoine Vieillard-Baron; Jean-François Timsit; Elie Azoulay Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-12-13 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Manuel Ignacio Monge García; Manuel Gracia Romero; Anselmo Gil Cano; Hollmann D Aya; Andrew Rhodes; Robert Michael Grounds; Maurizio Cecconi Journal: Crit Care Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 9.097