Book contents
- Modern Monitoring in Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care
- Modern Monitoring in Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Chapter 1 Statistics Used to Assess Monitors and Monitoring Applications
- Chapter 2 Multimodal Neurological Monitoring
- Chapter 3 Cerebral Oximetry
- Chapter 4 The Oxygen Reserve Index
- Chapter 5 Point-of-Care Transesophageal Echocardiography
- Chapter 6 Point-of-Care Transthoracic Echocardiography
- Chapter 7 Point-of-Care Lung Ultrasound
- Chapter 8 Point-of-Care Ultrasound: Determination of Fluid Responsiveness
- Chapter 9 Point-of-Care Abdominal Ultrasound
- Chapter 10 Noninvasive Measurement of Cardiac Output
- Chapter 11 Assessing Intravascular Volume Status and Fluid Responsiveness: A Non-Ultrasound Approach
- Chapter 12 Assessment of Extravascular Lung Water
- Chapter 13 Point-of-Care Hematology
- Chapter 14 Assessment of Intraoperative Blood Loss
- Chapter 15 Respiratory Monitoring in Low-Intensity Settings
- Chapter 16 The Electronic Health Record as a Monitor for Performance Improvement
- Chapter 17 Future Monitoring Technologies: Wireless, Wearable, and Nano
- Chapter 18 Downside and Risks of Digital Distractions
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
Chapter 8 - Point-of-Care Ultrasound: Determination of Fluid Responsiveness
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 April 2020
Book contents
- Modern Monitoring in Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care
- Modern Monitoring in Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Chapter 1 Statistics Used to Assess Monitors and Monitoring Applications
- Chapter 2 Multimodal Neurological Monitoring
- Chapter 3 Cerebral Oximetry
- Chapter 4 The Oxygen Reserve Index
- Chapter 5 Point-of-Care Transesophageal Echocardiography
- Chapter 6 Point-of-Care Transthoracic Echocardiography
- Chapter 7 Point-of-Care Lung Ultrasound
- Chapter 8 Point-of-Care Ultrasound: Determination of Fluid Responsiveness
- Chapter 9 Point-of-Care Abdominal Ultrasound
- Chapter 10 Noninvasive Measurement of Cardiac Output
- Chapter 11 Assessing Intravascular Volume Status and Fluid Responsiveness: A Non-Ultrasound Approach
- Chapter 12 Assessment of Extravascular Lung Water
- Chapter 13 Point-of-Care Hematology
- Chapter 14 Assessment of Intraoperative Blood Loss
- Chapter 15 Respiratory Monitoring in Low-Intensity Settings
- Chapter 16 The Electronic Health Record as a Monitor for Performance Improvement
- Chapter 17 Future Monitoring Technologies: Wireless, Wearable, and Nano
- Chapter 18 Downside and Risks of Digital Distractions
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
Summary
Hypotension and shock in the perioperative setting may arise from a variety of etiologies. A common initial intervention is administration of a fluid bolus to increase the cardiac stroke volume and mean arterial blood pressure; however, up to 50% of all hypotensive patients do not have the desired hemodynamic response, and excessive fluid administration may be harmful. There is a clinical need to determine the likelihood that an individual patient will respond to fluid administration, and use of dynamic parameters is becoming routine. The respiratory variation of stroke volume associated with positive pressure ventilation (heart–lung interaction model) and the passive leg raise (endogenous fluid challenge model) are the two best-validated means to quickly augment stroke volume. This chapter will review ultrasound-based parameters such as inferior vena cava diameter change and velocity time integral variation utilizing these two methods of stroke volume augmentation to predict fluid responsiveness.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Rivers, E, Nguyen, B, Havstad, S, et al. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med 2001;345(19):1368–77.Google Scholar
ProCESS Investigators, Yealy, DM, Kellum, JA, et al. A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock. N Engl J Med 2014;370(18):1683–93.Google ScholarPubMed
Peake, SL, Bailey, M, Bellomo, R, et al. Australasian resuscitation of sepsis evaluation (ARISE): a multi-centre, prospective, inception cohort study. Resuscitation 2009;80(7):811–8.Google Scholar
Eskesen, TG, Wetterslev, M, Perner, A. Systematic review including re-analyses of 1148 individual data sets of central venous pressure as a predictor of fluid responsiveness. Intensive Care Med 2016;42(3):324–32.Google Scholar
Osman, D, Ridel, C, Ray, P, et al. Cardiac filling pressures are not appropriate to predict hemodynamic response to volume challenge. Crit Care Med 2007;35(1):64–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, A, Anel, R, Bunnell, E, et al. Pulmonary artery occlusion pressure and central venous pressure fail to predict ventricular filling volume, cardiac performance, or the response to volume infusion in normal subjects. Crit Care Med 2004;32(3):691–9.Google Scholar
Monnet, X, Julien, F, Ait-Hamou, N, et al. Lactate and venoarterial carbon dioxide difference/arterial-venous oxygen difference ratio, but not central venous oxygen saturation, predict increase in oxygen consumption in fluid responders. Crit Care Med 2013;41(6):1412–20.Google Scholar
Michard, F, Teboul, J-L. Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: a critical analysis of the evidence. Chest 2002;121(6):2000–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyd, JH, Forbes, J, Nakada, T-A, Walley, KR, Russell, JA. Fluid resuscitation in septic shock: a positive fluid balance and elevated central venous pressure are associated with increased mortality. Crit Care Med 2011;39(2):259–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Clinical Trials Network, Wiedemann, HP, Wheeler, AP, et al. Comparison of two fluid-management strategies in acute lung injury. N Engl J Med 2006;354(24):2564–75.Google ScholarPubMed
Marik, PE, Cavallazzi, R, Vasu, T, Hirani, A. Dynamic changes in arterial waveform derived variables and fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review of the literature. Crit Care Med 2009;37(9):2642–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monnet, X, Teboul, J-L. Assessment of volume responsiveness during mechanical ventilation: recent advances. Crit Care 2013;17(2):217.Google Scholar
Monnet, X, Rienzo, M, Osman, D, et al. Passive leg raising predicts fluid responsiveness in the critically ill. Crit Care Med 2006;34(5):1402–7.Google Scholar
Boulain, T, Achard, J-M, Teboul, J-L, et al. Changes in BP induced by passive leg raising predict response to fluid loading in critically ill patients. Chest 2002;121(4):1245–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mallat, J, Meddour, M, Durville, E, et al. Decrease in pulse pressure and stroke volume variations after mini-fluid challenge accurately predicts fluid responsiveness. Br J Anaesth 2015;115(3):449–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jue, J, Chung, W, Schiller, NB. Does inferior vena cava size predict right atrial pressures in patients receiving mechanical ventilation? J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2014;5(6):613–9.Google Scholar
Wallace, DJ, Allison, M, Stone, MB. Inferior vena cava percentage collapse during respiration is affected by the sampling location: an ultrasound study in healthy volunteers. Acad Emerg Med 2010;17(1):96–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shah, R, Spiegel, R, Lu, C, Crnosija, I, Ahmad, S. Relationship between the subcostal and right lateral ultrasound views of inferior vena cava collapse: implications for clinical use. Chest 2018;153(4):939–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barbier, C, Loubi Res, Y, Schmit, C, et al. Respiratory changes in inferior vena cava diameter are helpful in predicting fluid responsiveness in ventilated septic patients. Intensive Care Med 2004;30(9):1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feissel, M, Michard, F, Faller, J-P, Teboul, J-L. The respiratory variation in inferior vena cava diameter as a guide to fluid therapy. Intensive Care Med 2004;30(9):1834–7.Google Scholar
Muller, L, Bobbia, X, Toumi, M, et al. Respiratory variations of inferior vena cava diameter to predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients with acute circulatory failure: need for a cautious use. Crit Care 2012;16:R188.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z, Xu, X, Ye, S, Xu, L. Ultrasonographic measurement of the respiratory variation in the inferior vena cava diameter is predictive of fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol 2014;40(5):845–53.Google Scholar
Long, E, Oakley, E, Duke, T, Babl, FE, Paediatric research in emergency departments international collaborative (PREDICT). Does respiratory variation in inferior vena cava diameter predict fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Shock 2017;47(5):550–9.Google Scholar
Slama, M, Masson, H, Teboul, J-L, et al. Monitoring of respiratory variations of aortic blood flow velocity using esophageal Doppler. Intensive Care Med 2004;30(6):1182–7.Google Scholar
Feissel, M, Michard, FDR, Faller, J-P, Teboul, J-L. The respiratory variation in inferior vena cava diameter as a guide to fluid therapy. Intensive Care Med 2004;30(9):1–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamia, B, Ochagavia, A, Monnet, X, et al. Echocardiographic prediction of volume responsiveness in critically ill patients with spontaneously breathing activity. Intensive Care Med 2007;33(7):1125–32.Google Scholar
Ibarra-Estrada, MÁ, López-Pulgarín, JA, Mijangos-Méndez, JC, Díaz-Gómez, JL, Aguirre-Avalos, G. Respiratory variation in carotid peak systolic velocity predicts volume responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with septic shock: a prospective cohort study. Crit Ultrasound J 2015;7(1):12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Song, Y, Kwak, YL, Song, JW, Kim, YJ, Shim, JK. Respirophasic carotid artery peak velocity variation as a predictor of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with coronary artery disease. Br J Anaesth 2014;113(1):61–6.Google Scholar
Marik, PE, Levitov, A, Young, A, Andrews, L. The use of bioreactance and carotid Doppler to determine volume responsiveness and blood flow redistribution following passive leg raising in hemodynamically unstable patients. Chest 2013;143(2):364–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jalil, B, Thompson, P, Cavallazzi, R, et al. Comparing changes in carotid flow time and stroke volume induced by passive leg raising. Am J Med Sci 2018;355(2):168–73.Google Scholar
Taggu, A, Darang, N, Patil, S. Carotid artery flow time corrected (FTc) changes induced by passive leg raise (PLR) can predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated (MV) patients. Chest 2016;150(4):294A.Google Scholar
Myatra, SN, Prabu, NR, Divatia, JV, et al. The changes in pulse pressure variation or stroke volume variation after a “Tidal Volume Challenge” reliably predict fluid responsiveness during low tidal volume ventilation. Crit Care Med 2017;45(3):415–21.Google Scholar
Michard, F. Changes in arterial pressure during mechanical ventilation. Anesthesiology 2005;103(2):419–28.Google Scholar
Myatra, SN, Monnet, X, Teboul, JL. Use of “tidal volume challenge” to improve the reliability of pulse pressure variation. Crit Care 2017;21(1):6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar