| Literature DB >> 32962727 |
Marc Mourad1, Jacob Eliet2, Norddine Zeroual2, Marine Saour2, Pierre Sentenac2, Federico Manna3, Nicolas Molinari3, Thomas Gandet4, Pascal H Colson2,5, Philippe Gaudard2,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (VA-ECLS) results in cardiopulmonary shunting with reduced native cardiac output (NCO). Low NCO occurrence is common and associated with risk of thromboembolic and pulmonary complications. Practical tools for monitoring NCO during VA-ECLS would therefore be valuable. Pulse pressure (PP) and end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2) are known to be related to cardiac output. We have designed a study to test whether PP and EtCO2 were efficient for the monitoring of NCO during VA-ECLS.Entities:
Keywords: Cardiogenic shock; EtCO2; Pulse pressure; VA-ECLS support
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32962727 PMCID: PMC7507590 DOI: 10.1186/s13054-020-03280-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Crit Care ISSN: 1364-8535 Impact factor: 9.097
Fig. 1Flowchart. VA-ECLS, veno-arterial extracorporeal life support; PP, pulse pressure; PAC, pulmonary artery catheter; NCO, native cardiac output
Patients’ characteristics, clinical course, and outcomes in intensive care unit
| Men | 16 (62) |
| Age, years | 63 [58–70] |
| Body mass index | 25 [23–29] |
| Cardiogenic shock etiology | |
| Post cardiotomy | 11 (42) |
| Acute myocardial infarction | 8 (31) |
| Dilated cardiomyopathy | 5 (19) |
| 0thers | 2 (8) |
| Clinical and biological variables at VA-ECLS implantation | |
| Resuscitation before VA-ECLS | 9 (35) |
| VA-ECLS under CPR | 4 (15) |
| SOFA score | 12 [12–13] |
| Durable left VAD | 1 (4) |
| Transient left VAD | 4 (15) |
| IABP | 0 (0) |
| Serum lactate, mmol/L | 7.1 [4.5–9.7] |
| Prothrombin time, % | 56 [44–64] |
| Hemodynamic variables at inclusion (=1st study point) | |
| Heart rate, beats/min | 90 [77–100] |
| Cardiac pacing | 6 (23) |
| Norepinephrine, mg/h | 3 [1.3–5.1] |
| Inotropic support | 14 (54) |
| Inhaled nitric oxide | 7 (27) |
| VA-ECLS flow, L/min | 3.4 [2.9–4.1] |
| Left VAD flow if present, L/min | 0.9 [0.4–1.5] |
| Clinical course in ICU | |
| Days under VA-ECLS | 8 [6–10] |
| Add of transient left VAD during VA-ECLS | 4 (15) |
| Add of IABP during VA-ECLS | 0 (0) |
| Renal replacement therapy | 10 (38) |
| Successful VA-ECLS weaning | 18 (69) |
| Outcomes | |
| Length of ICU stay, days | 21 [13–31] |
| ICU survival | 13 (50) |
| 6-month survival | 11 (42) |
Data are expressed as median [IQR interquartile range], or N (%)
VA-ECLS veno-arterial extracorporeal life support, CPR cardiopulmonary resuscitation, SOFA Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment, VAD ventricular assist device, ICU intensive care unit, IABP intra-aortic balloon pump
Respiratory and hemodynamic data according to native cardiac output (NCO) < 1 L/min versus ≥ 1 L/min
| NCO < 1 L/min ( | NCO ≥ 1 L/min ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| VA-ECLS flow (Q ECLS), L/min | 3.2 [2.9–4] | 2.9 [2.2–3.8] | < 0.01 |
| VA-ECLS sweep gas flow (V ECLS), L/min | 5 [4–6] | 4 [3–5] | < 0.01 |
| V/Q ECLS | 1.3 [1.2–1.7] | 1.4 [1.1–1.8] | 0.96 |
| Tidal volume, mL | 300 [260–350] | 320 [300–360] | < 0.001 |
| Respiratory rate, breaths/min | 12 [11–14] | 12 [11–14] | 0.65 |
| Ventilator minute volume (V lung), L/min | 3.6 [3–4] | 3.9 [3.5–4.7] | < 0.01 |
| Positive end-expiratory pressure, cmH2O | 10 [8–10] | 10 [8–10] | 0.91 |
| Plateau pressure, cmH2O | 18 [17–21] | 18 [16–20] | 0.26 |
| V lung/V ECLS | 0.8 [0.6–1] | 1.1 [0.8–1.2] | < 0.001 |
| Heart rate, beats/min | 88 [73–107] | 87 [72–106] | 0.66 |
| Right atrium pressure, mmHg | 7 [5–8] | 11 [8–13] | 0.01 |
| PA systolic pressure, mmHg | 15 [12–18] | 26 [23–34] | < 0.001 |
| PA diastolic pressure, mmHg | 12 [9–15] | 19 [16–21] | < 0.001 |
| Mean PA pressure, mmHg | 13 [10–17] | 21 [18–26] | < 0.001 |
| PA wedge pressure, mmHg | 10 [8–12] | 14 [11–16] | 0.01 |
| NCO, L/min | 0.5 [0.15–0.5] | 1.8 [1.4–2.7] | < 0.001 |
| Systolic BP, mmHg | 79 [73–88] | 95 [84–109] | < 0.001 |
| Diastolic BP, mmHg | 73 [67–79] | 70 [63–77] | 0.13 |
| Pulse pressure, mmHg | 9 [0–14] | 31 [20–42] | < 0.001 |
| Mean BP, mmHg | 74 [69–80] | 78 [72–87] | < 0.01 |
| SvO2 (%) | 74 [72–78] | 72 [66–77] | 0.10 |
| PaCO2, mmHg | 35 [33–40] | 37 [34–41] | 0.26 |
| EtCO2, mmHg | 9 [2–12] | 23 [17–28] | < 0.001 |
| PaCO2-EtCO2, mmHg | 30 [22–33] | 13 [8–19] | < 0.001 |
| Norepinephrine (mg/h) | 3.2 [2.9–4] | 1.2 [0.2–0.4] | < 0.01 |
| Inotropic support | 34 (67) | 41 (28) | < 0.001 |
| Inhaled NO | 12 (23) | 21 (14) | 0.07 |
| Transient or durable left VAD | 11 (21) | 38 (26) | 0.57 |
Data are expressed as median [IQR interquartile range], or N (%)
NCO native cardiac output, VA-ECLS veno-arterial extracorporeal life support, EtCO end-tidal carbon dioxide, PaCO-EtCO arterial-to-end-tidal carbon dioxide gradient, BP blood pressure, PA pulmonary artery, SvO mixed venous oxygen saturation, NO nitric oxide, VAD left ventricular assist device
Fig. 2Pulse pressure and EtCO2 relationships with native cardiac output and their determinants. Native cardiac output was assessed with pulmonary artery catheter or echocardiography at the same time as pulse pressure, end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2), arterial carbon dioxide pressure (PaCO2), and heart rate. Figures consist of spline regression representations (cubic spline, P Bruce and Bruce 2017) of the relationships between a pulse pressure and native cardiac output, b pulse pressure and stroke volume, c EtCO2 and native cardiac output, and d PaCO2-EtCO2 gradient and native cardiac output. The variation of model performance according to the X was evaluated through prediction of the error model (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.01, and p = 0.3 for figures a, b, c, and d respectively)
Fig. 3ROC AUCs of pulse pressure and EtCO2 for predicting native cardiac output < 1 L/min. ROC curve for pulse pressure (PP) in red and for end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2) in black. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves quantified by area under the curve (AUC) and 95% CI were obtained from 149 study points because 47 pulse pressure values were missing (patients on concomitant left VAD). p = 0.058 between ROC AUC of PP versus EtCO2 (Delong test)