Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Fluid administration is the first-line intervention for increasing stroke volume (SV) and blood pressure (BP) in hemodynamically unstable patients [1]. In a previous study, approximately 70% and 30% of critically ill patients responded and did not respond to fluid challenges, respectively [2]. The lack of response to fluid challenges could lead to excessive fluid administration. Since hemodynamically unstable patients do not always respond to fluid challenges, various hemodynamic indices have been developed for predicting fluid responsiveness [3,4,5,6,7]. Dynamic indices using minimally invasive hemodynamic monitoring are commonly used to measure the SV and predict fluid responsiveness [8,9,10]. Goal-directed fluid therapy using dynamic indices can decrease complications in various clinical settings [11,12,13,14,15].
However, the clinical utility of dynamic indices in patients with low tidal volume, spontaneous breathing, and arrhythmias is limited [16]. Although lung-protective ventilation with low tidal volume (< 7 ml/kg) is frequently used for intra-operative respiratory management, the predictive utility of dynamic indices in such settings remains poor [17]. Accordingly, the utility of dynamic indices, especially in critically ill patients, is reduced [18]. Mechanical ventilation induces cyclic changes in intrathoracic pressure, which affects the right and left ventricular preload. The lower tidal volume ventilation leads to smaller changes in intrathoracic pressure and ventricular preload. Although the heart–lung interaction differs between spontaneously breathing and mechanically ventilated patients, the respiration during spontaneous breathing also induces the changes in the ventricular preload, which allows the use of dynamic indices to predict fluid responsiveness. However, the predictive utility of dynamic indices for fluid responsiveness is poor in normal spontaneously breathing patients [19]. Since spontaneous breathing induces small variations in the ventricular preload, dynamic indices cannot accurately detect fluid responsiveness. Additionally, because the effect of spontaneous breathing on hemodynamic conditions is dependent on several factors, including the respiratory rate and effort, which vary across breaths [20], the utility of dynamic indices during spontaneous breathing is limited. Accordingly, there is a need for novel interventions for assessing fluid responsiveness in patients with spontaneous breathing. This article summarizes an update regarding the prediction of fluid responsiveness during spontaneous breathing.
Diameter of the inferior vena cava
Measuring the diameter of the inferior vena cava (IVC) using ultrasonography is commonly used to assess the volume status in critically ill patients. Especially, the collapsibility index [(maximum expiratory diameter − minimum inspiratory diameter)/maximum expiratory diameter] of the IVC could be a good predictor of fluid responsiveness in spontaneous breathing patients [21]. A recent meta-analysis revealed that respiratory variations of the IVC could reliably predict fluid responsiveness during spontaneous breathing (pooled sensitivity: 80%, pooled specificity: 79%, area under the curve [AUC] by a receiver operating characteristic [ROC] analysis: 0.857). Respiratory interventions, including deep and standardized breathing, could improve the accuracy of the collapsibility index of IVC in predicting fluid responsiveness [22, 23]. Furthermore, the IVC measurement site is an essential factor for successful measurement. Caplan et al. [21] investigated the effect of the IVC measurement site on the predictability of fluid responsiveness and concluded that measuring the IVC diameter at 4 cm caudal to the IVC-right atrium junction allowed the best accuracy for discriminating fluid responders. At this site, standardized breathing also significantly improved the predicted power with an AUC of 0.98 compared with non-standardized breathing (AUC: 0.85) [21].
Passive leg raising
Passive leg raising (PLR) involves raising the lower limbs of the patient at 30–45 degrees from a horizontal position. It induces an increase in the preload by transferring a portion of the venous blood from the lower limbs to the central compartment [24]. To maximize the PLR-induced preload increase, the patient is usually (especially in the intensive care unit) set at a semi-recumbent rather than a horizontal position at baseline [24]. The PLR-induced preload increase is similar to the effect of a fluid challenge, with the difference being that PLR is reversible when returning to the baseline position [17]. Dynamic indices, including SV and cardiac output (CO), measured through minimally invasive CO monitoring or transthoracic echocardiography, are commonly used to assess the effect of PLR. A PLR-induced increase in SV or CO (thresholds: approximately 10–15%) could reliably predict fluid responsiveness (AUC: 0.74–0.94) in patients with spontaneous breathing [1]. Recently, Hamazaoui et al. [25] reported that a PLR-induced decrease in pulse pressure variation (PPV) could predict fluid responsiveness even in mechanically ventilated patients with spontaneous breathing activity. Specifically, a 1% decrease in PPV induced by PLR discriminated fluid responders with good sensitivity (87%) and specificity (68%). Further, an ROC analysis revealed that the AUC of PPV decreased by PLR was significantly higher than that of PPV without PLR procedures (0.78 vs. 0.61, P = 0.04). Although PLR can discriminate fluid responders even among spontaneously breathing patients, it has several limitations. First, it requires direct measurement of SV or CO, which is not feasible in some clinical situations [17]. Second, it cannot be used in patients with intracranial hypertension. Finally, intraabdominal hypertension can cause false PLR test results since the PLR-induced blood transfer from the lower limbs may be limited in this condition [17].
Changing the breathing technique
Changing the breathing technique is among the methods for improving the predictability of dynamic indices, even in spontaneous breathing. A previous study [26] reported that forced inspiratory breathing could increase the predictive utility of PPV (threshold: 13.7%) for fluid responsiveness during spontaneous breathing (AUC 0.910). Bronzwaer et al. [27] showed that paced breathing involving six breathing cycles per minute with additional expiratory resistance could improve the reliability of PPV with relatively high accuracy (AUC 0.46 vs. 0.92). Additionally, deep breathing is effective. Mukai et al. [19] investigated the effect of deep breathing on the reliability of the stroke volume variation (SVV) in patients with spontaneous breathing. They concluded that the difference (threshold: 4%) in SVV between normal and deep breathing showed excellent reliability in predicting fluid responsiveness (AUC 0.850, 95% CI 0.672–0.953), whereas SVV during normal breathing could not (AUC 0.579, 95% CI 0.386–0.756). The pre-anesthetic SVV during deep breathing is a good predictor of hemodynamic fluctuation after anesthetic induction in patients undergoing general anesthesia [28]. As aforementioned, respiratory interventions can enhance the predictability of dynamic indices even during spontaneous breathing and standardizing the breathing pace (including tidal volume) is essential for successful measurement.
Mini-fluid challenge
The optimal means of assessing fluid responsiveness is actually administering fluids and evaluating the response. However, the traditional 500-ml dose for the fluid challenge is excessive and can harm critically ill patients. Therefore, a small 100-ml dose is recently used to discriminate fluid responders [7]. A meta-analysis [29] revealed that a mini-fluid challenge (50–100 ml) could effectively predict fluid responsiveness with an AUC of 0.91 and an optimal threshold of 5% (pooled sensitivity: 82%, pooled specificity: 83%).
Mini-fluid challenge can effectively evaluate fluid responsiveness even in patients with spontaneous breathing. Guinot et al. [30] investigated the effectiveness of mini-fluid challenge during spontaneous breathing. They concluded that an increase in SV after a mini-fluid challenge (100 ml over 1 min) could predict an increase in SV after a 500-ml volume expansion (AUC 0.93, threshold: 7%). Mini-fluid challenge can effectively predict the fluid response of arterial pressure in patients under spinal anesthesia [31]. A recent study [32] found that a fluid challenge < 100 ml might be insufficient for yielding significant changes to discriminate fluid responders. Furthermore, it is important to consider the duration of the fluid challenge. The rate of fluid responders depends on the duration of the fluid challenge [33]. A rapid fluid bolus increases the proportion of fluid responders. Future studies are warranted to standardize the protocol of the mini-fluid challenge, including the fluid amount and duration.
Conclusion
Excessive fluid infusion, especially in critically ill patients, can be harmful. Therefore, volume expansion should be carefully performed. Dynamic indices could be used as indicators of fluid responsiveness with some interventions, even in patients with spontaneous breathing. Anesthesiologists should be aware of the strengths and limitations of each technique for clinical use. It is crucial that the decision of volume expansion is not solely based on the values of dynamic indices; rather, it should also consider the patients’ requirements (tissue hypoperfusion and hemodynamic instability) [7].
References
Chaves RCF, Corrêa TD, Neto AS, Bravim BA, Cordioli RL, Moreira FT, Timenetsky KT, de Assunção MSC. Assessment of fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients: a systematic review of literature. Ann Intensiv Care. 2018;8:21.
Cecconi M, Hofer C, Teboul JL, Pettila V, Wilkman E, Molnar Z, Della Rocca G, Aldecoa C, Artigas A, Jog S, Sander M, Spies C, Lefrant JY, De Backer D. Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: a global inception cohort study. Intensiv Care Med. 2015;41:1529–37.
Graessler MF, Wodack KH, Pinnschmidt HO, Nishimoto S, Behem CR, Reuter DA, Trepte CJC. Assessing volume responsiveness using right ventricular dynamic indicators of preload. J Anesth. 2021;35:488–94.
Hasanin A, Karam N, Mukhtar AM, Habib SF. The ability of pulse oximetry-derived peripheral perfusion index to detect fluid responsiveness in patients with septic shock. J Anesth. 2021;35:254–61.
Hasanin A, Mostafa M. Evaluation of fluid responsiveness during COVID-19 pandemic: what are the remaining choices? J Anesth. 2020;34:758–64.
Iizuka Y, Sanui M, Otsuka Y, Yoshinaga K, Nakatomi T, Lefor AK. Changes in peripheral perfusion index during intraoperative end-expiratory occlusion tests do not predict the response to fluid administration in patients undergoing lung protective ventilation. J Anesth. 2021;35:837–43.
Suehiro K. Update on the assessment of fluid responsiveness. J Anesth. 2020;34:163–6.
Kimura A, Suehiro K, Juri T, Tanaka K, Mori T. Changes in corrected carotid flow time induced by recruitment maneuver predict fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing general anesthesia. J Clin Monit Comput. 2021 (in press)
Watanabe R, Suehiro K, Mukai A, Tanaka K, Yamada T, Mori T, Nishikawa K. Changes in stroke volume induced by lung recruitment maneuver can predict fluid responsiveness during intraoperative lung-protective ventilation in prone position. BMC Anesthesiol. 2021;21:303.
Suehiro K, Tanaka K, Yamada T, Matsuura T, Funao T, Mori T, Nishikawa K. The utility of intra-operative three-dimensional transoesophageal echocardiography for dynamic measurement of stroke volume. Anaesthesia. 2015;70:150–9.
Coeckelenbergh S, Zaouter C, Alexander B, Cannesson M, Rinehart J, Duranteau J, Van der Linden P, Joosten A. Automated systems for perioperative goal-directed hemodynamic therapy. J Anesth. 2020;34:104–14.
Hikasa Y, Suzuki S, Mihara Y, Tanabe S, Shirakawa Y, Fujiwara T, Morimatsu H. Intraoperative fluid therapy and postoperative complications during minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a single-center retrospective study. J Anesth. 2020;34:404–12.
Hirata N. Fluid resuscitation with hydroxyethyl starch in perioperative acute hemorrhagic shock. J Anesth. 2020;34:317–9.
Suzuki T, Koyama K. Open randomized trial of the effects of 6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4/9 and 5% albumin on safety profile, volume efficacy, and glycocalyx degradation in hepatic and pancreatic surgery. J Anesth. 2020;34:912–23.
Tyagi A, Maitra S, Bhattacharjee S. Comparison of colloid and crystalloid using goal-directed fluid therapy protocol in non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Anesth. 2020;34:865–75.
Mair S, Tschirdewahn J, Gotz S, Frank J, Phillip V, Henschel B, Schultheiss C, Mayr U, Noe S, Treiber M, Schmid RM, Saugel B, Huber W. Applicability of stroke volume variation in patients of a general intensive care unit: a longitudinal observational study. J Clin Monit Comput. 2017;31:1177–87.
Monnet X, Teboul JL. Prediction of fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8:790.
Fischer MO, Mahjoub Y, Boisselier C, Tavernier B, Dupont H, Leone M, Lefrant JY, Gérard JL, Hanouz JL, Fellahi JL. Arterial pulse pressure variation suitability in critical care: a French national survey. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2015;34:23–8.
Mukai A, Suehiro K, Kimura A, Kodama S, Tanaka K, Mori T, Nishikawa K. Impact of deep breathing on predictability of stroke volume variation in spontaneous breathing patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2020;64:648–55.
Perel A. The value of dynamic preload variables during spontaneous ventilation. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2017;23:310–7.
Caplan M, Durand A, Bortolotti P, Colling D, Goutay J, Duburcq T, Drumez E, Rouze A, Nseir S, Howsam M, Onimus T, Favory R, Preau S. Measurement site of inferior vena cava diameter affects the accuracy with which fluid responsiveness can be predicted in spontaneously breathing patients: a post hoc analysis of two prospective cohorts. Ann Intensiv Care. 2020;10:168.
Preau S, Bortolotti P, Colling D, Dewavrin F, Colas V, Voisin B, Onimus T, Drumez E, Durocher A, Redheuil A, Saulnier F. Diagnostic accuracy of the inferior vena cava collapsibility to predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients with sepsis and acute circulatory failure. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:e290–7.
Bortolotti P, Colling D, Colas V, Voisin B, Dewavrin F, Poissy J, Girardie P, Kyheng M, Saulnier F, Favory R, Preau S. Respiratory changes of the inferior vena cava diameter predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients with cardiac arrhythmias. Ann Intensiv Care. 2018;8:79.
Bentzer P, Griesdale DE, Boyd J, MacLean K, Sirounis D, Ayas NT. Will this hemodynamically unstable patient respond to a bolus of intravenous fluids? JAMA. 2016;316:1298–309.
Hamzaoui O, Shi R, Carelli S, Sztrymf B, Prat D, Jacobs F, Monnet X, Gouëzel C, Teboul JL. Changes in pulse pressure variation to assess preload responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with spontaneous breathing activity: an observational study. Br J Anaesth. 2021;127:532–8.
Hong DM, Lee JM, Seo JH, Min JJ, Jeon Y, Bahk JH. Pulse pressure variation to predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients: tidal vs. forced inspiratory breathing. Anaesthesia. 2014;69:717–22.
Bronzwaer AS, Ouweneel DM, Stok WJ, Westerhof BE, van Lieshout JJ. Arterial pressure variation as a biomarker of preload dependency in spontaneously breathing subjects—a proof of principle. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0137364.
Juri T, Suehiro K, Tsujimoto S, Kuwata S, Mukai A, Tanaka K, Yamada T, Mori T, Nishikawa K. Pre-anesthetic stroke volume variation can predict cardiac output decrease and hypotension during induction of general anesthesia. J Clin Monit Comput. 2018;32:415–22.
Messina A, Dell’Anna A, Baggiani M, Torrini F, Maresca GM, Bennett V, Saderi L, Sotgiu G, Antonelli M, Cecconi M. Functional hemodynamic tests: a systematic review and a metanalysis on the reliability of the end-expiratory occlusion test and of the mini-fluid challenge in predicting fluid responsiveness. Crit Care. 2019;23:264.
Guinot PG, Bernard E, Defrancq F, Petiot S, Majoub Y, Dupont H, Lorne E. Mini-fluid challenge predicts fluid responsiveness during spontaneous breathing under spinal anaesthesia: an observational study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2015;32:645–9.
Guinot PG, Bernard E, Deleporte K, Petiot S, Dupont H, Lorne E. Mini-fluid challenge can predict arterial pressure response to volume expansion in spontaneously breathing patients under spinal anaesthesia. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2015;34:333–7.
Biais M, de Courson H, Lanchon R, Pereira B, Bardonneau G, Griton M, Sesay M, Nouette-Gaulain K. Mini-fluid challenge of 100 ml of crystalloid predicts fluid responsiveness in the operating room. Anesthesiology. 2017;127:450–6.
Toscani L, Aya HD, Antonakaki D, Bastoni D, Watson X, Arulkumaran N, Rhodes A, Cecconi M. What is the impact of the fluid challenge technique on diagnosis of fluid responsiveness? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2017;21:207.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
K.S. has received speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Factory.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Suehiro, K. Assessing fluid responsiveness during spontaneous breathing. J Anesth 36, 579–582 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-022-03075-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-022-03075-2