End-expiratory Occlusion Test and Lung Recruitment Maneuver to Assess Fluid responsiVeness In Surgical Patients

NCT ID: NCT03820440

Last Updated: 2020-02-11

Basic Information

• Recruitment Status: UNKNOWN
• Clinical Phase: NA
• Total Enrollment: 60 participants
• Study Classification: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Start Date: 2020-05-01
• Study Completion Date: 2020-12-31

Brief Summary

The functional hemodynamic test (FHT) called passive leg raising (PLR) has been successfully used for assessing the fluid responsiveness in ICU patients since 2009 and its reliability has been confirmed by three large meta-analyses. However, the PLR is not usually practicable in the OR.

A lot of different FHTs have been proposed, as alternative to the PLR, in ICU and, more recently, OR. These tests could be basically subdivided in two groups. A subgroup of FHTs is based on sudden and brief variations of the mechanical ventilation to induce a change in right ventricle preload and/or after load and, as consequence, of left ventricle SV. A second subgroup aims at testing the increase in SV after the rapid administration of a small aliquot of the predefined FC.

Among the first group, the end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) and the lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) have been previously successfully tested in surgical patients. The EEOT consists of the interruption of the mechanical ventilation for 30 seconds, whereas the LRM consists in the increase in the peak inspiratory pressure up to 30 cmH20 for 30 seconds and in the assessment of the changes in the SV after the maneuvers. These tests are safe and can be easily applicable during the surgery to predict fluid responsiveness and optimize the fluid therapy.

The primary aim of the present study is to compare the reliability of EEOT and LRM in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing general surgery.

Detailed Description

Targeted fluid therapy has received increasing attention in the management of patients showing acute circulatory failure in both intensive care unit (ICU) and operating room (OR), aiming at preventing both inadequate tissue blood flow and fluid overload [1]. In fact, unnecessary fluid administration can increase morbidity and mortality and length of hospital stay of critically ill and surgical patients [2-10].

Since the only physiological reason to give a fluid challenge (FC) is to increase the stroke volume (SV) [11-13] and this effect is obtained only in about 50% of ICU and OR patients [14, 15], a vast literature investigated the possibility of predict this effect before FC administration, but the issue remains extremely challenging [1, 13, 16-18]. Bedside clinical signs and pressure and static volumetric static variables, do not predict fluid responsiveness [17]. Moreover, several physiological factors affect the reliability of the ventilator-induced dynamic changes in pulse pressure and stroke volume [pulse pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV), respectively], and their echographic surrogates, in a significant number of ICU and OR patients [19-22].

To overcome these limitations, the functional hemodynamic assessment (i.e. the assessment of the dynamic interactions of hemodynamic variables in response to a defined perturbation), of fluid responsiveness has gained in popularity [17, 18, 23]. A functional hemodynamic test (FHT) consist in a manoeuvre determining a sudden change in cardiac function and/or heart lung interaction, affecting the hemodynamics of fluid responders and non-responders to a different extent [17, 18, 23].

The FHT called passive leg raising (PLR) has been successfully used for assessing the fluid responsiveness in ICU patients since 2009 [24] and its reliability has been confirmed by three large meta-analyses [25-27]. However, the PLR is not usually practicable in the OR.

A lot of different FHTs have been proposed, as alternative to the PLR, in ICU and, more recently, OR. These tests could be basically subdivided in two groups. A subgroup of FHTs is based on sudden and brief variations of the mechanical ventilation to induce a change in right ventricle preload and/or after load and, as consequence, of left ventricle SV [24, 28]. A second subgroup aims at testing the increase in SV after the rapid administration of a small aliquot of the predefined FC [29, 30].

Among the first group, the end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) and the lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) have been previously successfully tested in surgical patients [31-33]. The EEOT consists of the interruption of the mechanical ventilation for 30 seconds, whereas the LRM consists in the increase in the peak inspiratory pressure up to 30 cmH20 for 30 seconds and in the assessment of the changes in the SV after the maneuvers. These tests are safe and can be easily applicable during the surgery to predict fluid responsiveness and optimize the fluid therapy.

The primary aim of the present study is to compare the reliability of EEOT and LRM in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing general surgery.

(for Bibliography please refer to the original protocol)

Conditions

Hemodynamic Instability; Surgery; Fluid Overload

Study Design

• Allocation Method: NA
• Intervention Model: SINGLE_GROUP
• Primary Study Purpose: DIAGNOSTIC
• Blinding Strategy: NONE

Study Groups

Treatment - hemodynamic tests

Treatment - hemodynamic tests:

The EEOT is performed by interrupting the mechanical ventilation for 30 seconds, by using and end-expiratory hold on the ventilator.

The LRM is performed by using a single act of mechanical ventilation in pressure-controlled mode at 30 cmH20 for 30 seconds

Group Type: EXPERIMENTAL

End-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT)

Intervention Type: DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

The EEOT is performed by interrupting the mechanical ventilation for 30 seconds, by using and end-expiratory hold on the ventilator.

Lung recruitment manovre (LRM)

Intervention Type: DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

The LRM is performed by using a single act of mechanical ventilation in pressure-controlled mode at 30 cmH20 for 30 seconds

Interventions

End-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT)

The EEOT is performed by interrupting the mechanical ventilation for 30 seconds, by using and end-expiratory hold on the ventilator.

Intervention Type: DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

Lung recruitment manovre (LRM)

The LRM is performed by using a single act of mechanical ventilation in pressure-controlled mode at 30 cmH20 for 30 seconds

Intervention Type: DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

1. Adult patients aged ≥ 18 years;

2. Scheduled for elective supine abdominal surgery and requiring invasive arterial monitoring;

3. Glasgow coma scale 15 at recruitment. All the patients must be able to sign an informed consent at the admission.

Exclusion Criteria

1. Any recurrent cardiac arrhythmias;

2. Reduced left (ejection fraction <30%) or right (systolic peak velocity of tricuspid annular motion <0.17 m/s) ventricular systolic function;

3. Chronic use beta-blocking agents.

4. History of pneumothorax.

5. BMI > 40

• Minimum Eligible Age: 18 Years
• Eligible Sex: ALL
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No

Sponsors

Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Maggiore della Carita

OTHER

Sponsor Role: collaborator

Humanitas Clinical and Research Center

OTHER

Sponsor Role: lead

Responsible Party

Antonio Messina

ICU senior consultant

Responsibility Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Locations

Humanitas Research Hospital

Rozzano, Milano, Italy

Countries

Italy

References

Biais M, Larghi M, Henriot J, de Courson H, Sesay M, Nouette-Gaulain K. End-Expiratory Occlusion Test Predicts Fluid Responsiveness in Patients With Protective Ventilation in the Operating Room. Anesth Analg. 2017 Dec;125(6):1889-1895. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002322.

Reference Type: RESULT

PMID: 28742783 (View on PubMed)

Biais M, Lanchon R, Sesay M, Le Gall L, Pereira B, Futier E, Nouette-Gaulain K. Changes in Stroke Volume Induced by Lung Recruitment Maneuver Predict Fluid Responsiveness in Mechanically Ventilated Patients in the Operating Room. Anesthesiology. 2017 Feb;126(2):260-267. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001459.

Reference Type: RESULT

PMID: 27922547 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

ELVIS

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id