Use of pulse pressure variation to estimate changes in preload during experimental acute normovolemic hemodilution

Background. Acute normovolemic hemodilution (ANH) is an alternative to blood transfusion in surgeries involving blood loss. This experimental study was designed to evaluate whether pulse pressure variation (PPV) would be an adequate tool for monitoring changes in preload during ANH, as assessed by transesophageal echocardiography. Methods. Twenty-one anesthetized and mechanically ventilated pigs were randomized into three groups: CTL (control), HES (hemodilution with 6% hydroxyethyl starch at a 1:1 ratio) or NS (hemodilution with saline 0.9% at a 3:1 ratio). Hemodilution was performed in animals of groups NS and HES in two stages, with target hematocrits 22% and 15%, achieved at 30-minute intervals. After two hours, 50% of the blood volume withdrawn was transfused and animals were monitored for another hour. Statistical analysis was based on ANOVA for repeated measures followed by multiple comparison test (P<0.05). Pearson's correlations were performed between changes in left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) and PPV, central venous pressure (CVP) and pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP). Results. Group NS received a significantly greater amount of fluids during ANH (NS, 900 +/- 168 mL vs. HES, 200 +/- 50 mL, P<0.05) and presented greater urine output (NS, 2643 +/- 1097mL vs. HES, 641 +/- 338mL, P<0.001). Significant decreases in LVEDV were observed in group NS from completion of ANH until transfusion. In group HES, only increases in LVEDV were observed, at the end of ANH and at transfusion. Such changes in LVEDV (Delta LVEDV) were better reflected by changes in PPV (Delta PPV, R=-0.62) than changes in CVP (Delta CVP R=0.32) or in PAOP (Delta PAOP, R=0.42, respectively). Conclusion. Changes in preload during ANH were detected by changes in PPV. Delta PPV was superior to Delta PAOP and Delta CVP to this end. (Minerva Anestesiol 2012;78:426-33)PAPESPPAPESP [06/55221-8, FMUSP/LIM-08

Effect of lung recruitment and titrated Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) vs low PEEP on mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome - A randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE: The effects of recruitment maneuvers and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration on clinical outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine if lung recruitment associated with PEEP titration according to the best respiratory-system compliance decreases 28-day mortality of patients with moderate to severe ARDS compared with a conventional low-PEEP strategy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 120 intensive care units (ICUs) from 9 countries from November 17, 2011, through April 25, 2017, enrolling adults with moderate to severe ARDS. INTERVENTIONS: An experimental strategy with a lung recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration according to the best respiratory-system compliance (n = 501; experimental group) or a control strategy of low PEEP (n = 509). All patients received volume-assist control mode until weaning. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality until 28 days. Secondary outcomes were length of ICU and hospital stay; ventilator-free days through day 28; pneumothorax requiring drainage within 7 days; barotrauma within 7 days; and ICU, in-hospital, and 6-month mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1010 patients (37.5% female; mean [SD] age, 50.9 [17.4] years) were enrolled and followed up. At 28 days, 277 of 501 patients (55.3%) in the experimental group and 251 of 509 patients (49.3%) in the control group had died (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.42; P = .041). Compared with the control group, the experimental group strategy increased 6-month mortality (65.3% vs 59.9%; HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.38; P = .04), decreased the number of mean ventilator-free days (5.3 vs 6.4; difference, −1.1; 95% CI, −2.1 to −0.1; P = .03), increased the risk of pneumothorax requiring drainage (3.2% vs 1.2%; difference, 2.0%; 95% CI, 0.0% to 4.0%; P = .03), and the risk of barotrauma (5.6% vs 1.6%; difference, 4.0%; 95% CI, 1.5% to 6.5%; P = .001). There were no significant differences in the length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, ICU mortality, and in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients with moderate to severe ARDS, a strategy with lung recruitment and titrated PEEP compared with low PEEP increased 28-day all-cause mortality. These findings do not support the routine use of lung recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01374022