Brachial artery peak velocity variation to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients

INTRODUCTION Although several parameters have been proposed to predict the hemodynamic response to fluid expansion in critically ill patients, most of them are invasive or require the use of special monitoring devices. The aim of this study is to determine whether noninvasive evaluation of respiratory variation of brachial artery peak velocity flow measured using Doppler ultrasound could predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS We conducted a prospective clinical research in a 17-bed multidisciplinary ICU and included 38 mechanically ventilated patients for whom fluid administration was planned due to the presence of acute circulatory failure. Volume expansion (VE) was performed with 500 mL of a synthetic colloid. Patients were classified as responders if stroke volume index (SVi) increased >or= 15% after VE. The respiratory variation in Vpeakbrach (DeltaVpeakbrach) was calculated as the difference between maximum and minimum values of Vpeakbrach over a single respiratory cycle, divided by the mean of the two values and expressed as a percentage. Radial arterial pressure variation (DeltaPPrad) and stroke volume variation measured using the FloTrac/Vigileo system (DeltaSVVigileo), were also calculated. RESULTS VE increased SVi by >or= 15% in 19 patients (responders). At baseline, DeltaVpeakbrach, DeltaPPrad and DeltaSVVigileo were significantly higher in responder than nonresponder patients [14 vs 8%; 18 vs. 5%; 13 vs 8%; P < 0.0001, respectively). A DeltaVpeakbrach value >10% predicted fluid responsiveness with a sensitivity of 74% and a specificity of 95%. A DeltaPPrad value >10% and a DeltaSVVigileo >11% predicted volume responsiveness with a sensitivity of 95% and 79%, and a specificity of 95% and 89%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Respiratory variations in brachial artery peak velocity could be a feasible tool for the noninvasive assessment of fluid responsiveness in patients with mechanical ventilatory support and acute circulatory failure. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT00890071.

Role of the paclitaxel-eluting stent and tirofiban in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing postfibrinolysis angioplasty: the GRACIA-3 randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND A catheter-based approach after fibrinolysis is recommended if fibrinolysis is likely to be successful in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction. We designed a 2x2 randomized, open-label, multicenter trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the paclitaxel-eluting stent and tirofiban administered after fibrinolysis but before catheterization to optimize the results of this reperfusion strategy. METHODS AND RESULTS We randomly assigned 436 patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction to (1) bare-metal stent without tirofiban, (2) bare-metal stent with tirofiban, (3) paclitaxel-eluting stent without tirofiban, and (4) paclitaxel-eluting stent with tirofiban. All patients were initially treated with tenecteplase and enoxaparin. Tirofiban was started 120 minutes after tenecteplase in those patients randomly assigned to tirofiban. Cardiac catheterization was performed within the first 3 to 12 hours after inclusion, and stenting (randomized paclitaxel or bare stent) was applied to the culprit artery. The primary objectives were the rate of in-segment binary restenosis of paclitaxel-eluting stent compared with that of bare-metal stent and the effect of tirofiban on epicardial and myocardial flow before and after mechanical revascularization. At 12 months, in-segment binary restenosis was similar between paclitaxel-eluting stent and bare-metal stent (10.1% versus 11.3%; relative risk, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.74 to 1.52; P=0.89). However, late lumen loss (0.04+/-0.055 mm versus 0.27+/-0.057 mm, P=0.003) was reduced in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group. No evidence was found of any association between the use of tirofiban and any improvement in the epicardial and myocardial perfusion. Major bleeding was observed in 6.1% of patients receiving tirofiban and in 2.7% of patients not receiving it (relative risk, 2.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 5.73; P=0.14). CONCLUSIONS This trial does not provide evidence to support the use of tirofiban after fibrinolysis to improve epicardial and myocardial perfusion. Compared with bare-metal stent, paclitaxel-eluting stent significantly reduced late loss but appeared not to reduce in-segment binary restenosis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00306228.