Pulse pressure variation and volume responsiveness during acutely increased pulmonary artery pressure: an experimental study

We found that pulse pressure variation (PPV) did not predict volume responsiveness in patients with increased pulmonary artery pressure. This study tests the hypothesis that PPV does not predict fluid responsiveness during an endotoxin-induced acute increase in pulmonary artery pressure and right ventricular loading.

[Arterial pressure curve and fluid status.]

Fluid optimization is a major contributor to improved outcome in patients. Unfortunately, anesthesiologists are often in doubt whether an additional fluid bolus will improve the hemodynamics of the patient or not as excess fluid may even jeopardize the condition. This article discusses physiological concepts of liberal versus restrictive fluid management followed by a discussion on the respective capabilities of various monitors to predict fluid responsiveness. The parameter difference in pulse pressure (dPP), derived from heart-lung interaction in mechanically ventilated patients is discussed in detail. The dPP cutoff value of 13% to predict fluid responsiveness is presented together with several assessment techniques of dPP. Finally, confounding variables on dPP measurements, such as ventilation parameters, pneumoperitoneum and use of norepinephrine are also mentioned.

Automatic algorithm for monitoring systolic pressure variation and difference in pulse pressure

BACKGROUND: Difference in pulse pressure (dPP) reliably predicts fluid responsiveness in patients. We have developed a respiratory variation (RV) monitoring device (RV monitor), which continuously records both airway pressure and arterial blood pressure (ABP). We compared the RV monitor measurements with manual dPP measurements. METHODS: ABP and airway pressure (PAW) from 24 patients were recorded. Data were fed to the RV monitor to calculate dPP and systolic pressure variation in two different ways: (a) considering both ABP and PAW (RV algorithm) and (b) ABP only (RV(slim) algorithm). Additionally, ABP and PAW were recorded intraoperatively in 10-min intervals for later calculation of dPP by manual assessment. Interobserver variability was determined. Manual dPP assessments were used for comparison with automated measurements. To estimate the importance of the PAW signal, RV(slim) measurements were compared with RV measurements. RESULTS: For the 24 patients, 174 measurements (6-10 per patient) were recorded. Six observers assessed dPP manually in the first 8 patients (10-min interval, 53 measurements); no interobserver variability occurred using a computer-assisted method. Bland-Altman analysis showed acceptable bias and limits of agreement of the 2 automated methods compared with the manual method (RV: -0.33% +/- 8.72% and RV(slim): -1.74% +/- 7.97%). The difference between RV measurements and RV(slim) measurements is small (bias -1.05%, limits of agreement 5.67%). CONCLUSIONS: Measurements of the automated device are comparable with measurements obtained by human observers, who use a computer-assisted method. The importance of the PAW signal is questionable.

Impact of epinephrine and norepinephrine on two dynamic indices in a porcine hemorrhagic shock model

Abstract BACKGROUND: Pulse pressure variations (PPVs) and stroke volume variations (SVVs) are dynamic indices for predicting fluid responsiveness in intensive care unit patients. These hemodynamic markers underscore Frank-Starling law by which volume expansion increases cardiac output (CO). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of the administration of catecholamines on PPV, SVV, and inferior vena cava flow (IVCF). METHODS: In this prospective, physiologic, animal study, hemodynamic parameters were measured in deeply sedated and mechanically ventilated pigs. Systemic hemodynamic and pressure-volume loops obtained by inferior vena cava occlusion were recorded. Measurements were collected during two conditions, that is, normovolemia and hypovolemia, generated by blood removal to obtain a mean arterial pressure value lower than 60 mm Hg. At each condition, CO, IVCF, SVV, and PPV were assessed by catheters and flow meters. Data were compared between the conditions normovolemia and hypovolemia before and after intravenous administrations of norepinephrine and epinephrine using a nonparametric Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: Eight pigs were anesthetized, mechanically ventilated, and equipped. Both norepinephrine and epinephrine significantly increased IVCF and decreased PPV and SVV, regardless of volemic conditions (p < 0.05). However, epinephrine was also able to significantly increase CO regardless of volemic conditions. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates that intravenous administrations of norepinephrine and epinephrine increase IVCF, whatever the volemic conditions are. The concomitant decreases in PPV and SVV corroborate the fact that catecholamine administration recruits unstressed blood volume. In this regard, understanding a decrease in PPV and SVV values, after catecholamine administration, as an obvious indication of a restored volemia could be an outright misinterpretation.