If consecutive end-inspiratory occlusion and end-expiratory occlusion change velocity-time integral is greater than or equal to 13% in total, fluid responsiveness is accurately predicted. This threshold is more compatible with the precision of echocardiography than that obtained by end-expiratory occlusion alone.

Background In acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), extravascular lung water index (EVLWi) and pulmonary vascular permeability index (PVPI) measured by transpulmonary thermodilution reflect the degree of lung injury. Whether EVLWi and PVPI are different between non-COVID-19 ARDS and the ARDS due to COVID-19 has never been reported. We aimed at comparing EVLWi, PVPI, respiratory mechanics and hemodynamics in patients with COVID-19 ARDS vs. ARDS of other origin. Methods Between March and October 2020, in an observational study conducted in intensive care units from three university hospitals, 60 patients with COVID-19-related ARDS monitored by transpulmonary thermodilution were compared to the 60 consecutive non-COVID-19 ARDS admitted immediately before the COVID-19 outbreak between December 2018 and February 2020. Results Driving pressure was similar between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS, at baseline as well as during the study period. Compared to patients without COVID-19, those with COVID-19 exhibited higher EVLWi, both at the baseline (17 (14–21) vs. 15 (11–19) mL/kg, respectively, p = 0.03) and at the time of its maximal value (24 (18–27) vs. 21 (15–24) mL/kg, respectively, p = 0.01). Similar results were observed for PVPI. In COVID-19 patients, the worst ratio between arterial oxygen partial pressure over oxygen inspired fraction was lower (81 (70–109) vs. 100 (80–124) mmHg, respectively, p = 0.02) and prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were more frequently used than in patients without COVID-19. COVID-19 patients had lower maximal lactate level and maximal norepinephrine dose than patients without COVID-19. Day-60 mortality was similar between groups (57% vs. 65%, respectively, p = 0.45). The maximal value of EVLWi and PVPI remained independently associated with outcome in the whole cohort. Conclusion Compared to ARDS patients without COVID-19, patients with COVID-19 had similar lung mechanics, but higher EVLWi and PVPI values from the beginning of the disease. This was associated with worse oxygenation and with more requirement of prone positioning and ECMO. This is compatible with the specific lung inflammation and severe diffuse alveolar damage related to COVID-19. By contrast, patients with COVID-19 had fewer hemodynamic derangement. Eventually, mortality was similar between groups. Trial registration number and date of registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04337983). Registered 30 March 2020—Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04337983.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of prone positioning on venous return and its determinants such as mean systemic pressure and venous return resistance in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. DESIGN: Prospective monocentric study. SETTINGS: A 25-bed medical ICU. PATIENTS: About 22 patients with mild-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome in whom prone positioning was decided. INTERVENTIONS: We obtained cardiac index, mean systemic pressure, and venous return resistance (the latter two estimated through the heart-lung interactions method) before and during prone positioning. Preload responsiveness was assessed at baseline using an end-expiratory occlusion test. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Prone positioning significantly increased mean systemic pressure (from 24 mm Hg [19–34 mm Hg] to 35 mm Hg [32–46 mm Hg]). This was partly due to the trunk lowering performed before prone positioning. In seven patients, prone positioning increased cardiac index greater than or equal to 15%. All were preload responsive. In these patients, prone positioning increased mean systemic pressure by 82% (76–95%), central venous pressure by 33% (21–59%), (mean systemic pressure – central venous pressure) gradient by 144% (83–215)%, while it increased venous return resistance by 71% (60–154%). In 15 patients, prone positioning did not increase cardiac index greater than or equal to 15%. In these patients, prone positioning increased mean systemic pressure by 28% (18–56%) (p < 0.05 vs. patients with significant increase in cardiac index), central venous pressure by 21% (7–54%), (mean systemic pressure – central venous pressure) gradient by 28% (23–86%), and venous return resistance by 37% (17–77%). Eleven of these 15 patients were preload unresponsive. CONCLUSIONS: Prone positioning increased mean systemic pressure in all patients. The resulting change in cardiac index depended on the extent of increase in (mean systemic pressure – central venous pressure) gradient, of preload responsiveness, and of the increase in venous return resistance. Cardiac index increased only in preload-responsive patients if the increase in venous return resistance was lower than the increase in the (mean systemic pressure –central venous pressure) gradient.

Venous return is the flow of blood from the systemic venous network towards the right heart. At steady state, venous return equals cardiac output, as the venous and arterial systems operate in series. However, unlike the arterial one, the venous network is a capacitive system with a high compliance. It includes a part of unstressed blood, which is a reservoir that can be recruited via sympathetic endogenous or exogenous stimulation. Guyton’s model describes the three determinants of venous return: the mean systemic filling pressure, the right atrial pressure and the resistance to venous return. Recently, new methods have been developed to explore such determinants at the bedside. In this narrative review, after a reminder about Guyton’s model and current methods used to investigate it, we emphasize how Guyton’s physiology helps understand the effects on cardiac output of common treatments used in critically ill patients.

No abstract

OBJECTIVE: To report the first eight cases of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Hong Kong, describing the treatments and supportive care they received and their 28-day outcomes. DESIGN: Multicentre retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Three multidisciplinary intensive care units (ICUs) in Hong Kong. PARTICIPANTS: All adult critically ill patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to ICUs in Hong Kong between 22 January and 11 February 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 28-day mortality. RESULTS: Eight out of 49 patients with COVID-19 (16%) were admitted to Hong Kong ICUs during the study period. The median age was 64.5 years (range, 42–70) with a median admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 6 (IQR, 4–7). Six patients (75%) required mechanical ventilation, six patients (75%) required vasopressors and two (25%) required renal replacement therapy. None of the patients required prone ventilation, nitric oxide or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The median times to shock reversal and extubation were 9 and 11 days respectively. At 28 days, one patient (12%) had died and the remaining seven (88%) all survived to ICU discharge. Only one of the survivors (14%) still required oxygen at 28 days. CONCLUSION: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 often require a moderate duration of mechanical ventilation and vasopressor support. Most of these patients recover and survive to ICU discharge with supportive care using lung protective ventilation strategies, avoiding excess fluids, screening and treating bacterial co-infection, and timely intubation. Lower rather than upper respiratory tract viral burden correlates with clinical severity of illness.

Background Through venous contraction, norepinephrine (NE) increases stressed blood volume and mean systemic pressure (Pms) and exerts a “fluid-like” effect. When both fluid and NE are administered, Pms may not only result from the sum of the effects of both drugs. Indeed, norepinephrine may enhance the effects of volume expansion: because fluid dilutes into a more constricted, smaller, venous network, fluid may increase Pms to a larger extent at a higher than at a lower dose of NE. We tested this hypothesis, by mimicking the effects of fluid by passive leg raising (PLR). Methods In 30 septic shock patients, norepinephrine was decreased to reach a predefined target of mean arterial pressure (65–70 mmHg by default, 80–85 mmHg in previously hypertensive patients). We measured the PLR-induced increase in Pms (heart–lung interactions method) under high and low doses of norepinephrine. Preload responsiveness was defined by a PLR-induced increase in cardiac index ≥ 10%. Results Norepinephrine was decreased from 0.32 [0.18–0.62] to 0.26 [0.13–0.50] µg/kg/min (p < 0.0001). This significantly decreased the mean arterial pressure by 10 [7–20]% and Pms by 9 [4–19]%. The increase in Pms (∆Pms) induced by PLR was 13 [9–19]% at the higher dose of norepinephrine and 11 [6–16]% at the lower dose (p < 0.0001). Pms reached during PLR at the high dose of NE was higher than expected by the sum of Pms at baseline at low dose, ∆Pms induced by changing the norepinephrine dose and ∆Pms induced by PLR at low dose of NE (35.6 [11.2] mmHg vs. 33.6 [10.9] mmHg, respectively, p < 0.01). The number of preload responders was 8 (27%) at the high dose of NE and 15 (50%) at the low dose. Conclusions Norepinephrine enhances the Pms increase induced by PLR. These results suggest that a bolus of fluid of the same volume has a greater haemodynamic effect at a high dose than at a low dose of norepinephrine during septic shock.

Background Prone position is frequently used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), especially during the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Our study investigated the ability of pulse pressure variation (PPV) and its changes during a tidal volume challenge (TVC) to assess preload responsiveness in ARDS patients under prone position. Methods This was a prospective study conducted in a 25-bed intensive care unit at a university hospital. We included patients with ARDS under prone position, ventilated with 6 mL/kg tidal volume and monitored by a transpulmonary thermodilution device. We measured PPV and its changes during a TVC (ΔPPV TVC6–8) after increasing the tidal volume from 6 to 8 mL/kg for one minute. Changes in cardiac index (CI) during a Trendelenburg maneuver (ΔCITREND) and during end-expiratory occlusion (EEO) at 8 mL/kg tidal volume (ΔCI EEO8) were recorded. Preload responsiveness was defined by both ΔCITREND ≥ 8% and ΔCI EEO8 ≥ 5%. Preload unresponsiveness was defined by both ΔCITREND < 8% and ΔCI EEO8 < 5%. Results Eighty-four sets of measurements were analyzed in 58 patients. Before prone positioning, the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen was 104 ± 27 mmHg. At the inclusion time, patients were under prone position for 11 (2–14) hours. Norepinephrine was administered in 83% of cases with a dose of 0.25 (0.15–0.42) µg/kg/min. The positive end-expiratory pressure was 14 (11–16) cmH2O. The driving pressure was 12 (10–17) cmH2O, and the respiratory system compliance was 32 (22–40) mL/cmH2O. Preload responsiveness was detected in 42 cases. An absolute change in PPV ≥ 3.5% during a TVC assessed preload responsiveness with an area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve of 0.94 ± 0.03 (sensitivity: 98%, specificity: 86%) better than that of baseline PPV (0.85 ± 0.05; p = 0.047). In the 56 cases where baseline PPV was inconclusive (≥ 4% and < 11%), ΔPPV TVC6–8 ≥ 3.5% still enabled to reliably assess preload responsiveness (AUROC: 0.91 ± 0.05, sensitivity: 97%, specificity: 81%; p < 0.01 vs. baseline PPV). Conclusion In patients with ARDS under low tidal volume ventilation during prone position, the changes in PPV during a TVC can reliably assess preload responsiveness without the need for cardiac output measurements. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04457739). Registered 30 June 2020 —Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT04457739