Do changes in pulse pressure variation and inferior vena cava distensibility during passive leg raising and tidal volume challenge detect preload responsiveness in case of low tidal volume ventilation?

 

Do changes in pulse pressure variation and inferior vena cava distensibility during passive leg raising and tidal volume challenge detect preload responsiveness in case of low tidal volume ventilation?

 

by Temistocle Taccheri, Francesco Gavelli, Jean-Louis Teboul, Rui Shi and Xavier Monnet 

 

Critical Care volume 25, Article number: 110 (2021) 

 

Background

In patients ventilated with tidal volume (Vt) < 8 mL/kg, pulse pressure variation (PPV) and, likely, the variation of distensibility of the inferior vena cava diameter (IVCDV) are unable to detect preload responsiveness. In this condition, passive leg raising (PLR) could be used, but it requires a measurement of cardiac output. The tidal volume (Vt) challenge (PPV changes induced by a 1-min increase in Vt from 6 to 8 mL/kg) is another alternative, but it requires an arterial line. We tested whether, in case of Vt = 6 mL/kg, the effects of PLR could be assessed through changes in PPV (ΔPPVPLR) or in IVCDV (ΔIVCDVPLR) rather than changes in cardiac output, and whether the effects of the Vt challenge could be assessed by changes in IVCDV (ΔIVCDVVt) rather than changes in PPV (ΔPPVVt).

Methods

In 30 critically ill patients without spontaneous breathing and cardiac arrhythmias, ventilated with Vt = 6 mL/kg, we measured cardiac index (CI) (PiCCO2), IVCDV and PPV before/during a PLR test and before/during a Vt challenge. A PLR-induced increase in CI ≥ 10% defined preload responsiveness.

Results

At baseline, IVCDV was not different between preload responders (n = 15) and non-responders. Compared to non-responders, PPV and IVCDV decreased more during PLR (by − 38 ± 16% and − 26 ± 28%, respectively) and increased more during the Vt challenge (by 64 ± 42% and 91 ± 72%, respectively) in responders. ∆PPVPLR, expressed either as absolute or as percent relative changes, detected preload responsiveness (area under the receiver operating curve, AUROC: 0.98 ± 0.02 for both). ∆IVCDVPLR detected preload responsiveness only when expressed in absolute changes (AUROC: 0.76 ± 0.10), not in relative changes. ∆PPVVt, expressed as absolute or percent relative changes, detected preload responsiveness (AUROC: 0.98 ± 0.02 and 0.94 ± 0.04, respectively). This was also the case for ∆IVCDVVt, but the diagnostic threshold (1 point or 4%) was below the least significant change of IVCDV (9[3–18]%).

Conclusions

During mechanical ventilation with Vt = 6 mL/kg, the effects of PLR can be assessed by changes in PPV. If IVCDV is used, it should be expressed in percent and not absolute changes. The effects of the Vt challenge can be assessed on PPV, but not on IVCDV, since the diagnostic threshold is too small compared to the reproducibility of this variable.

Trial registration: Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de santé: ID-RCB: 2016-A00893-48.