Effects of Peep and Tidal Volume on Fluid Responsiveness of Ards

Project: National Science and Technology CouncilNational Science and Technology Council Academic Grants

Project Details


In septic critically ill mechanically ventilated patients with acute circulatory failure, inadequate volume resuscitation leads to multiple organ failure. Early goal-directed therapy emphasizes early and aggressive hemodynamic support in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. On the other hand, because of increased microvascular permeability and capillary leakage, conservative fluid management and more aggressive restriction in fluid accumulation to reduce lung water and tissue edema has been suggested by ARDSnet. Fluid responsiveness refers to the ability of the heart to increase its stroke volume in response to volume load. Accurately predicting volume responsiveness will be beneficial in obviating the need for unnecessary fluid loading, and in detecting patients who may benefit from a volume load. By inducing cyclic changes in pleural and transpulmonary pressure, mechanical ventilation results in cyclic changes in the preload and afterload, and therefore, the cyclic variation in systolic and pulse pressure. Recently, a systemic review concluded that dynamic preload indicator [pulse pressure variation (PPV), stroke volume variation (SVV)] are highly accurate in predicting volume responsiveness in critically ill patients. However, this technique is limited to patients who receive controlled ventilation with adequate tidal volume (> 8 ml/Kg) and sedation or paralysis is needed to abolish the spontaneous ventilation. For ARDS patients, protective ventilatory strategy suggested low tidal volume to 6 ml/Kg. On the contrary, high PEEP needed for ARDS to prevent VALI induces a leftward shift to the steep pat of the Frank-Starling curve and increase the fluid responsiveness. Whether the dynamic preload indicators (PPV and SVV) are still effective in ARDS patients for predicting fluid responsiveness remain controversial. Passive leg raising (PLR), by inducing a gravitational transfer of blood from the lower part of the body toward the central circulatory compartment, can be considered as a brief “self volume challenge”. Recently, a systemic review and meta-analysis concluded that PLR-induced changes in cardiac output reliably predict fluid responsiveness regardless of ventilation mode, underlying cardiac rhythm and technique of measurement and can be recommended for routine assessment of fluid responsiveness in the majority of ICU population. More importantly, this prediction remains very valuable in patients with cardiac arrhythmias or spontaneous breathing activity. Respiratory variations in the pulse oximeter plethysmographic waveform amplitude (ΔPOP) have been shownto be able to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. The main advantage of this index is that it is noninvasive, widely available, and inexpensive. Perfusion index (PI), the percentage between the infrared pulsatile and nonpulsatile signal, reflects the amplitude of the pulse oximeter waveform. Recently, Pleth Variability Index (PVI), derived from perfusion index, affords a continuous monitoring of ΔPOP.PVI has been shown to be correlated to ΔPOP and PPV and has been demonstrated to be equivalent to SVV as a predictor of fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients during major surgery. However, whether the PVI can predict the fluid responsiveness in ARDS necessitating low tidal volume and high PEEP is not clear. Because of the aforementioned contrasting effects of low tidal volume and high PEEP on the prediction of fluid responsiveness, the aim of this study is to compare the relative predicting power of the dynamic preload indicator (PPV, SVV), passive leg raising test, and PVI on the fluid responsiveness of ARDS ventilated with various PEEP levels or various tidal volumes.

Project IDs

Project ID:PC10108-0750
External Project ID:NSC101-2314-B182-073-MY2
Effective start/end date01/08/1231/07/13


Explore the research topics touched on by this project. These labels are generated based on the underlying awards/grants. Together they form a unique fingerprint.