Monitoring haemodynamic response to fluid-challenge in ICU: comparison of pressure recording analytical method and oesophageal Doppler. Issue 2 (February 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Barthélémy, Romain; Neuschwander, Arthur; Dramé, Fatou; Redouté, Maximilien; Ditchi, David; Stern, Jules; Mebazaa, Alexandre; Pirracchio, Romain; Chousterman, Benjamin G.
• Is Part Of: European journal of anaesthesiology. Volume 36:Issue 2(2019:Feb.)
• Publication Date: 2019-02
• Subjects: Anesthesiology -- Periodicals; Anesthesiology -- Periodicals; Anesthésiologie -- Périodiques; Anesthesiology; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 617.96
• DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000924
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0265-0215

Abstract

Abstract : BACKGROUND: The ability of the pressure recording analytical method (PRAM) in tracking change in cardiac output (ΔCO) after a fluid challenge in ICU needs to be evaluated with the most contemporary comparison methods recommended by experts. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to report the trending ability of PRAM in tracking ΔCO after a fluid challenge in ICU and to compare this with oesophageal Doppler monitoring (ODM). DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: Hôpital Lariboisière and Hôpital Européen George Pompidou, Paris, France, from April 2016 to December 2017. PATIENTS: Critically ill patients admitted to ICU with monitoring of CO monitored by ODM and invasive arterial pressure. INTERVENTION: ΔCO after fluid challenge was simultaneously registered with ODM and PRAM connected to the arterial line. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Polar statistics (mean angular bias, radial limits of agreement and polar concordance rate) and clinical concordance evaluation (error grid and clinical concordance rate). Predictors of bias were determined. RESULTS: Sixty-eight fluid challenge were administered in 49 patients. At the time of fluid challenge, almost all were mechanically ventilated (99%), with 85% receiving norepinephrine. Admission diagnosis was septic shock in 70% of patients. Patients had a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 10 [7 to 12] and a median Simplified Acute Physiology Score II of 61 [49 to 69]. Relative ΔCO bias was 7.8° (6.3°) with radial limits of agreement of ±41.7°, polar concordance rate 80% and clinical concordance rate 74%. ΔCO bias was associated with baseline bias ( P = 0.007). Baseline bias was associated with radial location of the arterial line ( P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: When compared with ODM, PRAM has insufficient performance to track ΔCO induced by fluid challenge in ICU patients. Baseline bias is an independent predictor of trending bias. TRIAL REGISTRATION: IRB 00010254-2016-033. Abstract : Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text