Olfa Hamzaoui1, Rui Shi2, Simone Carelli3, Benjamin Sztrymf4, Dominique Prat5, Frederic Jacobs5, Xavier Monnet2, Corentin Gouëzel5, Jean-Louis Teboul2. 1. Service de réanimation Polyvalente, Hôpital Antoine Béclère, AP-HP Université Paris-Saclay, Clamart, France. Electronic address: olfa.hamzaoui@aphp.fr. 2. Université Paris-Saclay, AP-HP, Service de Médecine Intensive-réanimation, Hôpital de Bicêtre, DMU CORREVE, FHU SEPSIS, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France; INSERM-UMR_S999 LabEx - LERMIT, Hôpital Marie-Lannelongue, Le Plessis Robinson, France. 3. Université Paris-Saclay, AP-HP, Service de Médecine Intensive-réanimation, Hôpital de Bicêtre, DMU CORREVE, FHU SEPSIS, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France. 4. Service de réanimation Polyvalente, Hôpital Antoine Béclère, AP-HP Université Paris-Saclay, Clamart, France; INSERM-UMR_S999 LabEx - LERMIT, Hôpital Marie-Lannelongue, Le Plessis Robinson, France. 5. Service de réanimation Polyvalente, Hôpital Antoine Béclère, AP-HP Université Paris-Saclay, Clamart, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pulse pressure variation (PPV) is not reliable in predicting preload responsiveness in patients receiving mechanical with spontaneous breathing (SB) activity. We hypothesised that an increase in PPV after a tidal volume (VT) challenge (TVC) or a decrease in PPV during passive leg raising (PLR) can predict preload responsiveness in such cases. METHODS: This prospective observational study was performed in two ICUs and included patients receiving mechanical ventilation with SB, for whom the treating physician decided to test preload responsiveness. Transthoracic echocardiography was used to measure the velocity-time integral (VTI) of the left ventricular outflow tract. Patients exhibiting an increase in VTI ≥12% during PLR were defined as PLR+ patients (or preload responders). Then, a TVC was performed by increasing VT by 2 ml kg-1 predicted body weight (PBW) for 1 min. PPV was recorded at each step. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients (Simplified Acute Physiology Score II: 60 (25) ventilated with a VT of 6.5 (0.8) ml kg-1 PBW, were included. Twenty-two patients were PLR+. The absolute decrease in PPV during PLR and the absolute increase in PPV during TVC discriminated between PLR+ and PLR- patients with area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of 0.78 and 0.73, respectively, and cut-off values of -1% and +2%, respectively. Those AUROC curve values were similar but were significantly different from that of baseline PPV (0.61). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing mechanical ventilation with SB activity, PPV does not predict preload responsiveness. However, the decrease in PPV during PLR and the increase in PPV during a TVC help discriminate preload responders from non-responders with moderate accuracy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04369027 (ClinicalTrials.gov).
BACKGROUND: Pulse pressure variation (PPV) is not reliable in predicting preload responsiveness in patients receiving mechanical with spontaneous breathing (SB) activity. We hypothesised that an increase in PPV after a tidal volume (VT) challenge (TVC) or a decrease in PPV during passive leg raising (PLR) can predict preload responsiveness in such cases. METHODS: This prospective observational study was performed in two ICUs and included patients receiving mechanical ventilation with SB, for whom the treating physician decided to test preload responsiveness. Transthoracic echocardiography was used to measure the velocity-time integral (VTI) of the left ventricular outflow tract. Patients exhibiting an increase in VTI ≥12% during PLR were defined as PLR+ patients (or preload responders). Then, a TVC was performed by increasing VT by 2 ml kg-1 predicted body weight (PBW) for 1 min. PPV was recorded at each step. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients (Simplified Acute Physiology Score II: 60 (25) ventilated with a VT of 6.5 (0.8) ml kg-1 PBW, were included. Twenty-two patients were PLR+. The absolute decrease in PPV during PLR and the absolute increase in PPV during TVC discriminated between PLR+ and PLR- patients with area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of 0.78 and 0.73, respectively, and cut-off values of -1% and +2%, respectively. Those AUROC curve values were similar but were significantly different from that of baseline PPV (0.61). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing mechanical ventilation with SB activity, PPV does not predict preload responsiveness. However, the decrease in PPV during PLR and the increase in PPV during a TVC help discriminate preload responders from non-responders with moderate accuracy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04369027 (ClinicalTrials.gov).