Can carotid artery Doppler variations induced by the end-expiratory occlusion maneuver predict fluid responsiveness in septic shock patients?
Carotid artery Doppler
End-expiratory occlusion test (EEOt)
Fluid challenge
Fluid responsiveness
Heart–lung interaction
Journal
Critical care (London, England)
ISSN: 1466-609X
Titre abrégé: Crit Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9801902
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 04 2023
19 04 2023
Historique:
received:
21
06
2022
accepted:
30
03
2023
medline:
21
4
2023
pubmed:
20
4
2023
entrez:
19
04
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
An increase in cardiac index (CI) during an end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOt) predicts fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients. However, if CI monitoring is unavailable or the echocardiographic window is difficult, using the carotid Doppler (CD) could be a feasible alternative to track CI changes. This study investigates whether changes in CD peak velocity (CDPV) and corrected flow time (cFT) during an EEOt were correlated with CI changes and if CDPV and cFT changes predicted fluid responsiveness in patients with septic shock. Prospective, single-center study in adults with hemodynamic instability. The CDPV and cFT on carotid artery Doppler and hemodynamic variables from the pulse contour analysis EV1000™ were recorded at baseline, during a 20-s EEOt, and after fluid challenge (500 mL). We defined responders as those who increased CI ≥ 15% after a fluid challenge. We performed 44 measurements in 18 mechanically ventilated patients with septic shock and without arrhythmias. The fluid responsiveness rate was 43.2%. The changes in CDPV were significantly correlated with changes in CI during EEOt (r = 0.51 [0.26-0.71]). A significant, albeit lower correlation, was found for cFT (r = 0.35 [0.1-0.58]). An increase in CI ≥ 5.35% during EEOt predicted fluid responsiveness with 78.9% sensitivity and 91.7% specificity, with an area under the ROC curve (AUROC) of 0.85. An increase in CDPV ≥ 10.5% during an EEOt predicted fluid responsiveness with 96.2% specificity and 53.0% sensitivity with an AUROC of 0.74. Sixty-one percent of CDPV measurements (from - 13.5 to 9.5 cm/s) fell within the gray zone. The cFT changes during EEOt did not accurately predict fluid responsiveness. In septic shock patients without arrhythmias, an increase in CDPV greater than 10.5% during a 20-s EEOt predicted fluid responsiveness with > 95% specificity. Carotid Doppler combined with EEOt may help optimize preload when invasive hemodynamic monitoring is unavailable. However, the 61% gray zone is a major limitation (retrospectively registered on Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04470856 on July 14, 2020).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
An increase in cardiac index (CI) during an end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOt) predicts fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients. However, if CI monitoring is unavailable or the echocardiographic window is difficult, using the carotid Doppler (CD) could be a feasible alternative to track CI changes. This study investigates whether changes in CD peak velocity (CDPV) and corrected flow time (cFT) during an EEOt were correlated with CI changes and if CDPV and cFT changes predicted fluid responsiveness in patients with septic shock.
METHODS
Prospective, single-center study in adults with hemodynamic instability. The CDPV and cFT on carotid artery Doppler and hemodynamic variables from the pulse contour analysis EV1000™ were recorded at baseline, during a 20-s EEOt, and after fluid challenge (500 mL). We defined responders as those who increased CI ≥ 15% after a fluid challenge.
RESULTS
We performed 44 measurements in 18 mechanically ventilated patients with septic shock and without arrhythmias. The fluid responsiveness rate was 43.2%. The changes in CDPV were significantly correlated with changes in CI during EEOt (r = 0.51 [0.26-0.71]). A significant, albeit lower correlation, was found for cFT (r = 0.35 [0.1-0.58]). An increase in CI ≥ 5.35% during EEOt predicted fluid responsiveness with 78.9% sensitivity and 91.7% specificity, with an area under the ROC curve (AUROC) of 0.85. An increase in CDPV ≥ 10.5% during an EEOt predicted fluid responsiveness with 96.2% specificity and 53.0% sensitivity with an AUROC of 0.74. Sixty-one percent of CDPV measurements (from - 13.5 to 9.5 cm/s) fell within the gray zone. The cFT changes during EEOt did not accurately predict fluid responsiveness.
CONCLUSIONS
In septic shock patients without arrhythmias, an increase in CDPV greater than 10.5% during a 20-s EEOt predicted fluid responsiveness with > 95% specificity. Carotid Doppler combined with EEOt may help optimize preload when invasive hemodynamic monitoring is unavailable. However, the 61% gray zone is a major limitation (retrospectively registered on Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04470856 on July 14, 2020).
Identifiants
pubmed: 37076861
doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04422-9
pii: 10.1186/s13054-023-04422-9
pmc: PMC10116770
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04470856']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
153Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Crit Care. 2019 Jul 29;23(1):264
pubmed: 31358025
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10
pubmed: 26903338
J Clin Monit Comput. 2022 Aug;36(4):1069-1077
pubmed: 34191254
Crit Care Med. 2011 Feb;39(2):259-65
pubmed: 20975548
Crit Care Med. 2012 Jan;40(1):152-7
pubmed: 21926581
Crit Care Med. 2017 Nov;45(11):e1131-e1138
pubmed: 28857907
Crit Care. 2009;13(1):201
pubmed: 19183431
Crit Care. 2019 Aug 7;23(1):274
pubmed: 31391083
Br J Anaesth. 2014 Jul;113(1):61-6
pubmed: 24722322
Front Psychol. 2017 Apr 07;8:456
pubmed: 28439244
Health Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 05;3(4):e190
pubmed: 33033751
Crit Care. 2012 May 30;16(3):R98
pubmed: 22647561
Crit Ultrasound J. 2015 Dec;7(1):29
pubmed: 26123610
Anesth Analg. 2017 Dec;125(6):1889-1895
pubmed: 28742783
Crit Care Med. 1991 Sep;19(9):1138-45
pubmed: 1679385
Intensive Care Med. 2010 Sep;36(9):1475-83
pubmed: 20502865
Crit Care. 2019 Apr 11;23(1):116
pubmed: 30971307
Br J Anaesth. 2016 Jun;116(6):750-8
pubmed: 27199309
Intensive Care Med. 2015 Sep;41(9):1529-37
pubmed: 26162676
Crit Care Med. 2009 Mar;37(3):951-6
pubmed: 19237902
Anesthesiology. 2017 Feb;126(2):260-267
pubmed: 27922547
Crit Care Med. 2013 Jul;41(7):1692-701
pubmed: 23774335
J Clin Monit Comput. 2000;16(3):223-8
pubmed: 12578107
Crit Care. 2021 Mar 15;25(1):104
pubmed: 33722261
Crit Care Med. 2006 May;34(5):1402-7
pubmed: 16540963
Crit Care Med. 2019 Feb;47(2):e96-e102
pubmed: 30379670
Intensive Care Med. 2014 Dec;40(12):1795-815
pubmed: 25392034
Crit Care Med. 2017 Mar;45(3):415-421
pubmed: 27922879
Crit Care. 2017 Dec 5;21(1):295
pubmed: 29208025
Crit Care. 2018 Feb 8;22(1):32
pubmed: 29415773
Ann Intensive Care. 2020 May 24;10(1):65
pubmed: 32449104
Crit Care. 2015 Jan 14;19:18
pubmed: 25658678
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2019 Aug;36(8):583-591
pubmed: 31021879
Crit Care. 2019 Jan 28;23(1):31
pubmed: 30691523
Crit Care. 2010;14(3):R108
pubmed: 20537138