4.6 Article

Passive leg raising for predicting fluid responsiveness: importance of the postural change

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 85-90

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-008-1293-3

关键词

Passive leg raising; Fluid responsiveness; Central venous pressure; Sepsis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For predicting fluid responsiveness by passive leg raising (PLR), the lower limbs can be elevated at 45A degrees either from the 45A degrees semi-recumbent position (PLRSEMIREC) or from the supine position (PLRSUPINE). PLRSUPINE could have a lower hemodynamic impact than PLRSEMIREC since it should not recruit the splanchnic venous reservoir. Prospective study A 24-bed medical intensive care unit. A total of 35 patients with circulatory failure who responded to an initial PLRSEMIREC by an increase in cardiac index a parts per thousand yen 10%. PLRSEMIREC, a transfer from the semi-recumbent to the supine position and PLRSUPINE were performed in all patients in a random order before fluid expansion (500 mL saline). PLRSEMIREC, supine transfer and PLRSUPINE significantly increased the pulse-contour derived cardiac index (PiCCOplus) by 22 (17-28)%, 9 (5-15)% and 10 (7-14)% (P < 0.05 vs. PLRSEMIREC for the latter two), respectively. These maneuvers significantly increased the right ventricular end-diastolic area (echocardiography) by 20 (14-29)%, 9 (5-16)% and 10 (5-16)% (P < 0.05 vs. PLRSEMIREC for the latter two) and the central venous pressure by 33 (22-50)%, 15 (10-20)% and 20 (15-29)% (P < 0.05 vs. PLRSEMIREC for the latter two), respectively. Volume expansion significantly increased cardiac index by 27 (21-38)% and all patients were responders to volume expansion. If an increase in cardiac index a parts per thousand yen 10% is considered as a positive response to PLRSUPINE, 15 (43%) patients would have been unduly predicted as non-responders to fluid administration by PLRSUPINE. PLRSEMIREC induces larger increase in cardiac preload than PLRSUPINE and may be preferred for predicting fluid responsiveness.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据