Changes in Radial Artery Pulse Pressure During a Fluid Challenge Cannot Assess Fluid Responsiveness in Patients With Septic Shock

Abstract

Background:

Arterial blood pressure is the most common variable used to assess the response to a fluid challenge in routine clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the change in the radial artery pulse pressure (rPP) to detect the change in cardiac output after a fluid challenge in patients with septic shock.

Methods:

Prospective observational study including 35 patients with septic shock in which rPP and cardiac output were measured before and after a fluid challenge with 400 mL of crystalloid solution. Cardiac output was measured with intermittent thermodilution technique using a pulmonary artery catheter. Patients were divided between responders (increase >15% of cardiac output after fluid challenge) and nonresponders. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), Pearson correlation coefficient and paired Student t test were used in statistical analysis.

Results:

Forty-three percent of the patients were fluid responders. The change in rPP could not neither discriminate between responders and nonresponders (AUROC = 0.52; [95% confidence interval: 0.31-0.72] P = .8) nor correlate (r = .21, P = .1) with the change in cardiac output after the fluid challenge.

Conclusions:

The change in rPP neither discriminated between fluid responders and nonresponders nor correlated with the change in cardiac output after a fluid challenge. The change in rPP cannot serve as a surrogate of the change in cardiac output to assess the response to a fluid challenge in patients with septic shock.

Keywords

fluid challenge fluid responsiveness radial pulse pressure pulmonary artery catheter cardiac output septic shock

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Hoste

Maitland

Brudney

, et al. Four phases of intravenous fluid therapy: a conceptual model. Br J Anaesth. 2014;113(5):740–747. doi:10.1093/bja/aeu300.

Lira

Pinsky

. Choices in fluid type and volume during resuscitation: impact on patient outcomes. Ann Intensive Care. 2014;4:38. doi:10.1186/s13613-014-0038-4.

Marik

. Iatrogenic salt water drowning and the hazards of a high central venous pressure. Ann Intensive Care. 2014;4(1):1–9. doi:10.1186/s13613-014-0021-0.

Marik

Lemson

. Fluid responsiveness: an evolution of our understanding. Br J Anaesth. 2014;112(4):617–620. doi:10.1093/bja/aet590.

Monnet

Marik

Teboul

. Prediction of fluid responsiveness: an update. Ann Intensive Care. 2016;6(1):111. doi:10.1186/s13613-016-0216-7.

Rhodes

Evans

Alhazzani

, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(3):486–552. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000002255.

Cecconi

De Backer

Antonelli

, et al. Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European society of intensive care medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(12):1795–1815. doi:10.1007/s00134-014-3525-z.

Cecconi

Hofer

Teboul

JLL

, et al; FENICE Investigators; ESICM Trial Group. Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: a global inception cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(9):1529–1537. doi:10.1007/s00134-015-3850-x.

Nirmalan

Pinsky

MR.

Direct arterial pressure monitoring: pattern recognition in the management of circulatory failure. In: Vincent

J-L

, ed. Yearbook of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2010. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 56–63. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-10286-8_6.

10.

Cecconi

Parsons

Rhodes

. What is a fluid challenge? Curr Opin Crit Care. 2011;17(3):290–295. doi:10.1097/MCC.0b013e32834699 cd.

11.

Monnet

Letierce

Hamzaoui

, et al. Arterial pressure allows monitoring the changes in cardiac output induced by volume expansion but not by norepinephrine*. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(6):1394–1399. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31820edcf0.

12.

Dufour

Chemla

Teboul

Monnet

Richard

Osman

. Changes in pulse pressure following fluid loading: a comparison between aortic root (non-invasive tonometry) and femoral artery (invasive recordings). Intensive Care Med. 2011;37(6):942–949. doi:10.1007/s00134-011-2154-z.

13.

Augusto

Teboul

Radermacher

Asfar

. Interpretation of blood pressure signal: physiological bases, clinical relevance, and objectives during shock states. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37(3):411–419. doi:10.1007/s00134-010-2092-1.

14.

Lakhal

Ehrmann

Perrotin

Wolff

Boulain

. Fluid challenge: tracking changes in cardiac output with blood pressure monitoring (invasive or non-invasive). Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(11):1953–1962. doi:10.1007/s00134-013-3086-6.

15.

Pierrakos

Velissaris

Scolletta

Heenen

Backer

Vincent

. Can changes in arterial pressure be used to detect changes in cardiac index during fluid challenge in patients with septic shock? Intensive Care Med. 2012;38(3):422–428. doi:10.1007/s00134-011-2457-0.

16.

Stetz

Miller

Kelly

Raffin

. Reliability of the thermodilution method in the determination of cardiac output in clinical practice. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1982;126(6):1001–1004. doi:10.1164/arrd.1982.126.6.1001.

17.

Monnet

Chemla

Osman

, et al. Measuring aortic diameter improves accuracy of esophageal doppler in assessing fluid responsiveness. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(2):477. doi:10.1097/01.CCM.0000254725.35802.17.