Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Fachpsychotherapie Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende Patientenratgeber
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Current Pulmonology Reports
Erschienen in:

09.05.2024 | REVIEW

Assessment of Fluid Responsiveness with Critical Care Echocardiography: An Update

verfasst von: Govind Pandompatam

Erschienen in: Current Pulmonology Reports | Ausgabe 3/2024

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To review the tests of fluid responsiveness and volume status with critical care echocardiography, including their uses, performance, and limitations.

Recent Findings

Fluid overload is detrimental to critically ill patients. Dynamic parameters of fluid responsiveness are able to predict which patients will respond to a fluid bolus with an increase in cardiac output. These tests include the passive leg raise, stroke volume variation, vena cava variability, and the end expiratory occlusion maneuver.

Summary

Critical care echocardiography can be used to evaluate changes in preload and stroke volume during performance of dynamic fluid responsiveness tests. The LVOT VTI is a central parameter used to estimate changes in stroke volume in real time during performance of these tests.
Literatur
1.
Marik PE, Cavallazzi R, Vasu T, Hirani A. Dynamic changes in arterial waveform derived variables and fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review of the literature. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(9):2642–7.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Hayashi Y, Shimazui T, Tomita K, Shimada T, Miura RE, Nakada TA. Associations between fluid overload and outcomes in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: a retrospective observational study. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):17410.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
3.
Malbrain M, Van Regenmortel N, Saugel B, De Tavernier B, Van Gaal PJ, Joannes-Boyau O, et al. Principles of fluid management and stewardship in septic shock: it is time to consider the four D’s and the four phases of fluid therapy. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8(1):66.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Huang CC, Fu JY, Hu HC, Kao KC, Chen NH, Hsieh MJ, et al. Prediction of fluid responsiveness in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients ventilated with low tidal volume and high positive end-expiratory pressure. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(10):2810–6.PubMedCrossRef
5.
6.
Kumar A, Anel R, Bunnell E, Habet K, Zanotti S, Marshall S, et al. Pulmonary artery occlusion pressure and central venous pressure fail to predict ventricular filling volume, cardiac performance, or the response to volume infusion in normal subjects. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(3):691–9.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Osman D, Ridel C, Ray P, Monnet X, Anguel N, Richard C, et al. Cardiac filling pressures are not appropriate to predict hemodynamic response to volume challenge. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(1):64–8.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Eskesen TG, Wetterslev M, Perner A. Systematic review including re-analyses of 1148 individual data sets of central venous pressure as a predictor of fluid responsiveness. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(3):324–32.PubMedCrossRef
9.
De Backer D, Vincent JL. Should we measure the central venous pressure to guide fluid management? Ten answers to 10 questions. Crit Care. 2018;22(1):43.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Rudski LG, Lai WW, Afilalo J, Hua L, Handschumacher MD, Chandrasekaran K, et al. Guidelines for the echocardiographic assessment of the right heart in adults: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography endorsed by the European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010;23(7):685–713; quiz 86–8.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Nagueh SF, Middleton KJ, Kopelen HA, Zoghbi WA, Quiñones MA. Doppler tissue imaging: a noninvasive technique for evaluation of left ventricular relaxation and estimation of filling pressures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;30(6):1527–33.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Fiza B, Duggal N, McMillan CE, Mentz G, Maile MD. Feasibility of anesthesiologist-performed preoperative echocardiography for the prediction of postinduction hypotension: A prospective observational study. Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2020;2020:1375741.PubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Blanco P, Aguiar FM, Blaivas M. Rapid ultrasound in shock (RUSH) velocity-time integral: a proposal to expand the RUSH protocol. J Ultrasound Med. 2015;34(9):1691–700.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Blanco P. Left ventricular outflow tract velocity-time integral: a proper measurement technique is mandatory. Vasc Med. 2020;25(3):283–4.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Mercado P, Maizel J, Beyls C, Titeca-Beauport D, Joris M, Kontar L, et al. Transthoracic echocardiography: an accurate and precise method for estimating cardiac output in the critically ill patient. Crit Care. 2017;21(1):136.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
Jentzer JC, Tabi M, Wiley BM, Lanspa MJ, Anavekar NS, Oh JK. Doppler-derived haemodynamics performed during admission echocardiography predict in-hospital mortality in cardiac intensive care unit patients. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2022;11(8):640–50.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Yuriditsky E, Mitchell OJ, Sibley RA, Xia Y, Sista AK, Zhong J, et al. Low left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral is associated with poor outcomes in acute pulmonary embolism. Vasc Med. 2020;25(2):133–40.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Tan C, Rubenson D, Srivastava A, Mohan R, Smith MR, Billick K, et al. Left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral outperforms ejection fraction and Doppler-derived cardiac output for predicting outcomes in a select advanced heart failure cohort. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2017;15(1):18.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
Dinh VA, Ko HS, Rao R, Bansal RC, Smith DD, Kim TE, et al. Measuring cardiac index with a focused cardiac ultrasound examination in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2012;30(9):1845–51.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Edelman SK. Understanding Ultrasound Physics: ESP Ultrasound. 2012.
21.
Ring L, Shah BN, Bhattacharyya S, Harkness A, Belham M, Oxborough D, et al. Echocardiographic assessment of aortic stenosis: a practical guideline from the British Society of Echocardiography. Echo Res Pract. 2021;8(1):G19–g59.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Blanco P. Rationale for using the velocity-time integral and the minute distance for assessing the stroke volume and cardiac output in point-of-care settings. Ultrasound J. 2020;12(1):21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
23.
Jozwiak M, Mercado P, Teboul JL, Benmalek A, Gimenez J, Dépret F, et al. What is the lowest change in cardiac output that transthoracic echocardiography can detect? Crit Care. 2019;23(1):116.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Baumgartner H, Hung J, Bermejo J, Chambers JB, Edvardsen T, Goldstein S, et al. Recommendations on the echocardiographic assessment of aortic valve stenosis: A focused update from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging and the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2017;30(4):372–92.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Orde S, Slama M, Hilton A, Yastrebov K, McLean A. Pearls and pitfalls in comprehensive critical care echocardiography. Crit Care. 2017;21(1):279.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
Quiñones MA, Otto CM, Stoddard M, Waggoner A, Zoghbi WA. Recommendations for quantification of Doppler echocardiography: a report from the Doppler Quantification Task Force of the Nomenclature and Standards Committee of the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2002;15(2):167–84.PubMedCrossRef
27.
28.
Kashani K, Omer T, Shaw AD. The intensivist’s perspective of shock, volume management, and hemodynamic monitoring. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2022;17(5):706–16.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
Bednarczyk JM, Fridfinnson JA, Kumar A, Blanchard L, Rabbani R, Bell D, et al. Incorporating dynamic assessment of fluid responsiveness into goal-directed therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(9):1538–45.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
30.
31.
Monnet X, Rienzo M, Osman D, Anguel N, Richard C, Pinsky MR, et al. Passive leg raising predicts fluid responsiveness in the critically ill. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(5):1402–7.PubMedCrossRef
32.
33.
Monnet X, Marik P, Teboul JL. Passive leg raising for predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(12):1935–47.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Cherpanath TG, Hirsch A, Geerts BF, Lagrand WK, Leeflang MM, Schultz MJ, et al. Predicting fluid responsiveness by passive leg raising: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 clinical trials. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(5):981–91.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Bentzer P, Griesdale DE, Boyd J, MacLean K, Sirounis D, Ayas NT. Will this hemodynamically unstable patient respond to a bolus of intravenous fluids? JAMA. 2016;316(12):1298–309.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Douglas IS, Alapat PM, Corl KA, Exline MC, Forni LG, Holder AL, et al. Fluid response evaluation in sepsis hypotension and shock: a randomized clinical trial. Chest. 2020;158(4):1431–45.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
Préau S, Saulnier F, Dewavrin F, Durocher A, Chagnon JL. Passive leg raising is predictive of fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients with severe sepsis or acute pancreatitis. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(3):819–25.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Cavallaro F, Sandroni C, Marano C, La Torre G, Mannocci A, De Waure C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of passive leg raising for prediction of fluid responsiveness in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(9):1475–83.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Monnet X, Jabot J, Maizel J, Richard C, Teboul JL. Norepinephrine increases cardiac preload and reduces preload dependency assessed by passive leg raising in septic shock patients. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(4):689–94.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Pickett JD, Bridges E, Kritek PA, Whitney JD. Passive leg-raising and prediction of fluid responsiveness: systematic review. Crit Care Nurse. 2017;37(2):32–47.PubMedCrossRef
41.
42.
Mahjoub Y, Touzeau J, Airapetian N, Lorne E, Hijazi M, Zogheib E, et al. The passive leg-raising maneuver cannot accurately predict fluid responsiveness in patients with intra-abdominal hypertension. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(9):1824–9.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Minini A, Abraham P, Malbrain M. Predicting fluid responsiveness with the passive leg raising test: don’t be fooled by intra-abdominal hypertension! Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(12):799.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
44.
Muller L, Toumi M, Bousquet PJ, Riu-Poulenc B, Louart G, Candela D, et al. An increase in aortic blood flow after an infusion of 100 ml colloid over 1 minute can predict fluid responsiveness: the mini-fluid challenge study. Anesthesiology. 2011;115(3):541–7.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Endo Y, Tamura J, Ishizuka T, Itami T, Hanazono K, Miyoshi K, et al. Stroke volume variation (SVV) and pulse pressure variation (PPV) as indicators of fluid responsiveness in sevoflurane anesthetized mechanically ventilated euvolemic dogs. J Vet Med Sci. 2017;79(8):1437–45.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
46.
47.
Michard F. Changes in arterial pressure during mechanical ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2005;103(2):419–28; quiz 49–5.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Wang J, Zhou D, Gao Y, Wu Z, Wang X, Lv C. Effect of VTILVOT variation rate on the assessment of fluid responsiveness in septic shock patients. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99(47):e22702.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Megri M, Fridenmaker E, Disselkamp M. Where are we heading with fluid responsiveness and septic shock? Cureus. 2022;14(4):e23795.PubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Myatra SN, Prabu NR, Divatia JV, Monnet X, Kulkarni AP, Teboul JL. The changes in pulse pressure variation or stroke volume variation after a “Tidal Volume Challenge” reliably predict fluid responsiveness during low tidal volume ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(3):415–21.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Wang X, Liu S, Gao J, Zhang Y, Huang T. Does tidal volume challenge improve the feasibility of pulse pressure variation in patients mechanically ventilated at low tidal volumes? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2023;27(1):45.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
Mukai A, Suehiro K, Kimura A, Kodama S, Tanaka K, Mori T, et al. Impact of deep breathing on predictability of stroke volume variation in spontaneous breathing patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2020;64(5):648–55.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Suehiro K. Assessing fluid responsiveness during spontaneous breathing. J Anesth. 2022;36(5):579–82.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Barbier C, Loubières Y, Schmit C, Hayon J, Ricôme JL, Jardin F, et al. Respiratory changes in inferior vena cava diameter are helpful in predicting fluid responsiveness in ventilated septic patients. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30(9):1740–6.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Preau S, Bortolotti P, Colling D, Dewavrin F, Colas V, Voisin B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the inferior vena cava collapsibility to predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients with sepsis and acute circulatory failure. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(3):e290–7.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Bortolotti P, Colling D, Colas V, Voisin B, Dewavrin F, Poissy J, et al. Respiratory changes of the inferior vena cava diameter predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients with cardiac arrhythmias. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8(1):79.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
57.
Si X, Cao D, Xu H, Guan X. Meta-analysis of ventilated versus spontaneously breathing patients in predicting fluid responsiveness by inferior vena cava variation. International journal of clinical medicine. 2018;9(10):760–77.CrossRef
58.
Via G, Tavazzi G, Price S. Ten situations where inferior vena cava ultrasound may fail to accurately predict fluid responsiveness: a physiologically based point of view. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(7):1164–7.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Cavaliere F, Cina A, Biasucci D, Costa R, Soave M, Gargaruti R, et al. Sonographic assessment of abdominal vein dimensional and hemodynamic changes induced in human volunteers by a model of abdominal hypertension. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(2):344–8.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Vieillard-Baron A, Chergui K, Rabiller A, Peyrouset O, Page B, Beauchet A, et al. Superior vena caval collapsibility as a gauge of volume status in ventilated septic patients. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30(9):1734–9.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Guarracino F, Ferro B, Forfori F, Bertini P, Magliacano L, Pinsky MR. Jugular vein distensibility predicts fluid responsiveness in septic patients. Crit Care. 2014;18(6):647.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
62.
63.
Monnet X, Osman D, Ridel C, Lamia B, Richard C, Teboul JL. Predicting volume responsiveness by using the end-expiratory occlusion in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(3):951–6.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Georges D, de Courson H, Lanchon R, Sesay M, Nouette-Gaulain K, Biais M. End-expiratory occlusion maneuver to predict fluid responsiveness in the intensive care unit: an echocardiographic study. Crit Care. 2018;22(1):32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
65.
Jozwiak M, Depret F, Teboul JL, Alphonsine JE, Lai C, Richard C, et al. predicting fluid responsiveness in critically Ill patients by using combined end-expiratory and end-inspiratory occlusions with echocardiography. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(11):e1131–8.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Malbrain ML, Marik PE, Witters I, Cordemans C, Kirkpatrick AW, Roberts DJ, et al. Fluid overload, de-resuscitation, and outcomes in critically ill or injured patients: a systematic review with suggestions for clinical practice. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2014;46(5):361–80.PubMedCrossRef
67.
Pandompatam G, Sweeney DA, Diaz-Gomez JL, Wiley BM. Integrated Cardiac and Lung Ultrasound (ICLUS) in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit. Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports. 2018;11:1–13.CrossRef
68.
Lichtenstein D. FALLS-protocol: lung ultrasound in hemodynamic assessment of shock. Heart Lung Vessel. 2013;5(3):142–7.PubMedPubMedCentral
69.
Beaubien-Souligny W, Rola P, Haycock K, Bouchard J, Lamarche Y, Spiegel R, et al. Quantifying systemic congestion with Point-Of-Care ultrasound: development of the venous excess ultrasound grading system. Ultrasound J. 2020;12(1):16.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
70.
Longino A, Martin K, Leyba K, Siegel G, Gill E, Douglas IS, et al. Correlation between the VExUS score and right atrial pressure: a pilot prospective observational study. Crit Care. 2023;27(1):205.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Assessment of Fluid Responsiveness with Critical Care Echocardiography: An Update
verfasst von
Govind Pandompatam
Publikationsdatum
09.05.2024
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Current Pulmonology Reports / Ausgabe 3/2024
Elektronische ISSN: 2199-2428
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13665-024-00352-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2024

Standardization of Point-of-Care-Ultrasonography in Critical Care: Enhancing Quality and Efficiency

  • REVIEW

Reviews Evidence-Based Approach to Treatment and Prevention of Bronchiectasis

  • Review

Cardiac Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Critical Care: Evolution, Current State, and Future Prospects

  • REVIEW

Cystic Lung Diseases: A Radiology Primer

  • REVIEW

Recent Advances in Mesothelioma

  • Open Access
  • REVIEW

Autoimmune Pulmonary Alveolar Proteinosis: A Review of Pathogenesis and Emerging Therapies

  • REVIEW

Kompaktes Leitlinien-Wissen Innere Medizin (Link öffnet in neuem Fenster)

Mit medbee Pocketcards schnell und sicher entscheiden.
Leitlinien-Wissen kostenlos und immer griffbereit auf ihrem Desktop, Handy oder Tablet.

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Schützen GLP1-Rezeptor-Agonisten vor kardiovaskulären Komplikationen nach Pneumonie?

Kardiovaskuläre Ereignisse nach Lungeninfektionen sind häufig, doch pathophysiologisch wenig verstanden. Dass womöglich Glukagon daran Anteil hat, eröffnet neue therapeutische Perspektiven.

Ringen um den richtigen Umgang mit Zufallsbefunden

Wenn 2026 in Deutschland das Lungenkrebsscreening mittels Low-Dose-Computertomografie (LDCT) eingeführt wird, wird es auch viele Zufallsbefunde ans Licht bringen. Das birgt Chancen und Risiken.

Wie gefährlich sind E-Zigaretten?

E-Zigaretten (Vaper) sind nicht harmlos – sie verführen zur parallelen Nutzung von E- und Tabakzigaretten (Dual Use) und machen das Rauchen für junge Menschen attraktiv u.a. aufgrund der vielfältigen Aromastoffe. Ein niedrigschwelliger Einstieg in die Tabakentwöhnung könnten digitale Anwendungen (DiGA) sein. 

Appendektomie erhält Remission bei Colitis ulcerosa

Wird der Wurmfortsatz bei Personen mit Colitis ulcerosa entfernt, ist die Rückfallrate um ein Drittel geringer als unter konservativer Behandlung. Auch die Lebensqualität verbessert sich und der Bedarf an Medikamenten nimmt ab.

EKG Essentials: EKG befunden mit System (Link öffnet in neuem Fenster)

In diesem CME-Kurs können Sie Ihr Wissen zur EKG-Befundung anhand von zwölf Video-Tutorials auffrischen und 10 CME-Punkte sammeln.
Praxisnah, relevant und mit vielen Tipps & Tricks vom Profi.

Jetzt 10 CME-Punkte sammeln

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise