Intensive Care Medicine

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 496–503

The influence of the airway driving pressure on pulsed pressure variation as a predictor of fluid responsiveness

  • Laurent Muller
  • Guillaume Louart
  • Philippe-Jean Bousquet
  • Damien Candela
  • Lana Zoric
  • Jean-Emmanuel de La Coussaye
  • Samir Jaber
  • Jean-Yves Lefrant
Original

DOI: 10.1007/s00134-009-1686-y

Cite this article as:
Muller, L., Louart, G., Bousquet, PJ. et al. Intensive Care Med (2010) 36: 496. doi:10.1007/s00134-009-1686-y
  • 438 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

Assessing pulse pressure variation (PPV) to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with tidal volume (VT) and the impact of VT and airway driving pressure (Pplat − PEEP) on the ability of PPV for predicting fluid responsiveness.

Design

Prospective interventional study.

Setting

ICU of a university hospital.

Patients

Fifty-seven mechanically ventilated and sedated patients with acute circulatory failure requiring cardiac output (CO) measurement.

Intervention

Fluid challenge was given in patients with signs of hypoperfusion (oliguria <0.5 ml kg−1 h−1, attempt to decrease vasopressor infusion rate). Fluid responsiveness was defined as an increase in the stroke index (SI) ≥15%. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated for PPV and central venous pressure (CVP).

Results

The stroke index was increased ≥15% in 41 patients (71%). At baseline, CVP was lower and PPV was higher in responders. The areas under the ROC curves of PPV and CVP were 0.77 (95% CI 0.65–0.90) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.64–0.89), respectively (P = 0.93). The best cutoff values of PPV and CVP were 7% and 9 mmHg, respectively. In 30 out of 41 responders, PPV was <13%. Using a polytomic logistic regression (Pplat − PEEP) was the sole independent factor associated with a PPV value <13% in responders. In these responders, (Pplat − PEEP) was ≤20 cmH2O.

Conclusion

In patients mechanically ventilated with low VT, PPV values <13% do not rule out fluid responsiveness, especially when (Pplat − PEEP) is ≤20 cmH2O.

Keywords

Critical care Fluid challenge 

Copyright information

© Copyright jointly hold by Springer and ESICM 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurent Muller
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Guillaume Louart
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Philippe-Jean Bousquet
    • 2
    • 4
  • Damien Candela
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Lana Zoric
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jean-Emmanuel de La Coussaye
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Samir Jaber
    • 5
  • Jean-Yves Lefrant
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Division Anesthésie Réanimation Douleur UrgencesGroupe Hospitalo-Universitaire Caremeau, CHU NîmesNîmes Cedex 9France
  2. 2.Faculté de MédecineUniversité Montpellier 1MontpellierFrance
  3. 3.Equipe d’Accueil 2992, Laboratoire de Physiologie Cardiovasculaire et d’Anesthésie Expérimentale, Faculté de MédecineGroupe Hospitalo-Universitaire CaremeauNîmes Cedex 9France
  4. 4.Département d’Information médicaleCHU NîmesNîmes Cedex 9France
  5. 5.Service d’Anesthésie Réanimation B (SAR B)MontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations