Evaluation of fluid responsiveness in ventilated septic patients: back to venous return

  • Philippe Vignon

Abstract

Adequate tissue perfusion and oxygen delivery is the primary goal of the therapeutic management of patientswith circulatory failure. Cardiac output—a major determinant of oxygen delivery—is the result of the interaction between the cardiac pump and venous return. Since cardiac output must equal the volume of blood entering the heart, an increase in venous return will increase cardiac output, provided that the venous return curve intersects with the ascending limb of the cardiac function curve [1]. This defines the preload dependence of the heart. In contrast, a further increase in preload when the heart operates on the flat portion of its function curve fails to increase cardiac output and results in increased filling pressure with potential deleterious venous congestion. Importantly, there is no fluid responsiveness of the left ventricle (LV) without right ventricular (RV) preload dependence [2]. A pivotal clinical question frequently raised is, therefore, the evaluation of RV ability to increase its output significantly in response to a fluid challenge. Another clinical question even more challenging to address is to determine if the patient really needs a higher cardiac output to improve his current condition.

Keywords

Right Ventricular Inferior Vena Cava Venous Return Fluid Responsiveness Stroke Volume Variation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Magder S (1993) Shock physiology. In: Pinsky MR, Dhainault JF (eds) Physiological foundations of critical care medicine. Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 140–160Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Magder S (1998) More respect for the CVP. Intensive Care Med 24:651–653PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guyton AC, Lindsey AW, Abernathy B, Richardson T (1957) Venous return at various atrial pressures and the normal venous return curve. Am J Physiol 189:609–615PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van Den Berg PCM, Jansen JRC, Pinsky MR (2002) Effect of positive pressure on venous return in volume loaded cardiac surgical patients. J Appl Physiol 92:1223–1231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vieillard-Baron A, Augarde R, Prin S, Page B, Beauchet A, Jardin F (2001) Influence of superior vena cava zone condition on cyclic changes in right ventricular outflow during respiratory support. Anesthesiology 95:1083–1088PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mitaka C, Nagura T, Sakanishi N, Tsunoda Y, Amaha K (1989) Two-dimensional echocardiographic evaluation of inferior vena cava, right ventricle and left ventricle during positive- pressure ventilation with varying levels of positive end-expiratory pressure. Crit Care Med 17:205–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vieillard-Baron A, Chergui K, Rabiller A, Peyrouset O, Page B, Beauchet A, Jardin F (2004) Superior vena cava collapsibility as a gauge of volume status in ventilated septic patients. Intensive Care Med (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-004-2361-y)
  8. 8.
    Feissel M, Michard F, Faller JP, Teboul JL (2004) The respiratory variation in inferior vena cava diameter as a guide to fluid therapy. Intensive Care Med (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-004-2233-5)
  9. 9.
    Barbier C, Loubières Y, Schmit C, Hayon J, Ricôme JL, Jardin F, Vieillard-Baron A (2004) Ability of respiratory changes in inferior vena cava diameter to predict fluid responsiveness in ventilated septic patients. Intensive Care Med (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-004-2259-8)
  10. 10.
    Charpentier J, Luyt CE, Fulla Y, Vinsonneau C, Cariou A, Grabar S, Dhainaut JF, Mira JP, Chiche JD (2004) Brain natriuretic peptide: a marker of myocardial dysfunction and prognosis during severe sepsis. Crit Care Med 32:660–665PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perel A (1998) Assessing fluid responsiveness by the systolic pressure variation in mechanically ventilated patients. Anesthesiology 89:1309–1310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vieillard-Baron A, Loubières Y, Schmitt JM, Page B, Dubourg O, Jardin F (1999) Cyclic changes in right ventricular output impedance during mechanical ventilation. J Appl Physiol 87:1644–1650PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Takata M, Wise RA, Robotham JL (1990) Effect of abdominal pressure on venous return: abdominal vascular zone conditions. J Appl Physiol 69:1961–1972PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bendjelid K, Romand JA (2003) Fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: a review of indices used in intensive care. Intensive Care Med 29:352–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Magder S (2004) Clinical usefulness of respiratory variations in arterial pressure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 169:151–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reuter DA, Bayerlein J, Goepfert MSG, Weis FC, Kilger E, Lamm P, Goetz AE (2003) Influence of tidal volume on left ventricular stroke volume variation measured by pulse contour analysis in mechanically ventilated patients. Intensive Care Med 29:476–480PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Michard F, Teboul JL, Richard C (2003) Influence of tidal volume on stroke volume variations. Does it really matter? Intensive Care Med 29:1613CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philippe Vignon
    • 1
  1. 1.Medical-surgical Intensive Care UnitDupuytren Teaching HospitalLimogesFrance

Personalised recommendations