Nicolaj Duus1, Daniel J Shogilev2, Simon Skibsted3, Hendrik W Zijlstra4, Emily Fish5, Achikam Oren-Grinberg5, Yotam Lior6, Victor Novack6, Daniel Talmor5, Hans Kirkegaard7, Nathan I Shapiro4. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA; Research Center for Emergency Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. Electronic address: Duus.nicolaj@gmail.com. 2. Duke University, Division of Emergency Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA; Research Center for Emergency Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA. 5. Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA. 6. Clinical Research Center, Soroka University Medical Center Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba, Israel. 7. Research Center for Emergency Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We investigated the reproducibility of passive leg raise (PLR) and fluid bolus (BOLUS) using the Non-Invasive Cardiac Output Monitor (NICOM; Cheetah Medical, Tel Aviv, Israel) for assessment of fluid responsiveness (FR) in spontaneously breathing emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: Prospective, observational study of a convenience sample of adult ED patients receiving intravenous fluid bolus. We assessed stroke volume (SV) using NICOM and obtained results from PLR, where the head of the bed was changed from semirecumbent to supine while the patients' legs raised to 45° for 3 minutes. Fluid bolus was defined as 5 mL/kg normal saline infusion. Maximal increase in SV was recorded. Fluid responsiveness was defined as an increase of SV greater than 10% from baseline. We obtained 4 consecutive responses for each patient; PLR1, PLR2, BOLUS1 separated each by 10 minutes, and BOLUS2 initiated immediately after the end of BOLUS1. We calculated κ statistics, correlation coefficients, and odds ratios with 95% confidence interval and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: We enrolled 109 patients enrolled in this study. The 2 PLRs were significantly correlated (r = 0.78, P < .001) with κ = 0.46 for FR (P < .001). The 2 BOLUSES less strongly correlated (r = 0.14, P = .001) and κ = 0.06 for FR (P < .001). Patients who were responsive to PLR1 had 9.5 (3.6-25) odds of being FR for PLR2, whereas those responsive to BOLUS1 had a 1.8 (0.76-4.3) increased odds of FR for BOLUS2. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we have found PLR as measured by the NICOM to be a promising tool for the evaluation of SV responsiveness. It was feasible for use in the ED, and the data suggest that the PLR technique may be more reproducible than the fluid bolus technique for assessing volume responsiveness.
PURPOSE: We investigated the reproducibility of passive leg raise (PLR) and fluid bolus (BOLUS) using the Non-Invasive Cardiac Output Monitor (NICOM; Cheetah Medical, Tel Aviv, Israel) for assessment of fluid responsiveness (FR) in spontaneously breathing emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: Prospective, observational study of a convenience sample of adult ED patients receiving intravenous fluid bolus. We assessed stroke volume (SV) using NICOM and obtained results from PLR, where the head of the bed was changed from semirecumbent to supine while the patients' legs raised to 45° for 3 minutes. Fluid bolus was defined as 5 mL/kg normal saline infusion. Maximal increase in SV was recorded. Fluid responsiveness was defined as an increase of SV greater than 10% from baseline. We obtained 4 consecutive responses for each patient; PLR1, PLR2, BOLUS1 separated each by 10 minutes, and BOLUS2 initiated immediately after the end of BOLUS1. We calculated κ statistics, correlation coefficients, and odds ratios with 95% confidence interval and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: We enrolled 109 patients enrolled in this study. The 2 PLRs were significantly correlated (r = 0.78, P < .001) with κ = 0.46 for FR (P < .001). The 2 BOLUSES less strongly correlated (r = 0.14, P = .001) and κ = 0.06 for FR (P < .001). Patients who were responsive to PLR1 had 9.5 (3.6-25) odds of being FR for PLR2, whereas those responsive to BOLUS1 had a 1.8 (0.76-4.3) increased odds of FR for BOLUS2. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we have found PLR as measured by the NICOM to be a promising tool for the evaluation of SV responsiveness. It was feasible for use in the ED, and the data suggest that the PLR technique may be more reproducible than the fluid bolus technique for assessing volume responsiveness.
Authors: Igor Barjaktarevic; William E Toppen; Scott Hu; Elizabeth Aquije Montoya; Stephanie Ong; Russell Buhr; Ian J David; Tisha Wang; Talayeh Rezayat; Steven Y Chang; David Elashoff; Daniela Markovic; David Berlin; Maxime Cannesson Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Ravi G Gupta; Sarah M Hartigan; Markos G Kashiouris; Curtis N Sessler; Gonzalo M L Bearman Journal: Crit Care Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Peter C Hou; Michael R Filbin; Anthony Napoli; Joseph Feldman; Peter S Pang; Jeffrey Sankoff; Bruce M Lo; Howard Dickey-White; Robert H Birkhahn; Nathan I Shapiro Journal: Shock Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Mohammed H Elwan; Ashraf Roshdy; Eman M Elsharkawy; Salah M Eltahan; Timothy J Coats Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 2.953