Open Access

Ability of respiratory pulse pressure variation to predict fluid responsiveness in ARDS: still an unanswered question?

Critical Care201115:432

DOI: 10.1186/cc10222

Published: 10 June 2011

We read with interest the study of Lakhal and colleagues [1] suggesting that respiratory pulse pressure variation (PPV) is not an accurate predictor of fluid responsiveness in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) ventilated with low tidal volume (Vt). They stated that the poor performance of PPV is attributed to small changes in respiratory pleural pressure related to low Vt, such that PPV is low even in the case of marked cardiac preload dependency. These findings are not surprising since in this study [1] the mean static compliance was not very low (40 cmH2O); therefore, the percentage of transmission of alveolar pressure to the pleural space was not really altered. Thus, the ventilation with low Vt induced small variations in pleural and transpulmonary pressures.

It must be stressed, however, that patients with ARDS usually exhibit a severe decrease in lung compliance and high plateau pressure. Moreover, in ARDS patients ventilated with low Vt, application of relatively high levels of positive end expiratory pressure (between 10 and 15 cmH2O) is now recommended [2]. Consequently, respiratory changes in transpulmonary pressure should remain greater than normal, and in spite of reduced lung compliance, cyclic changes in intrathoracic pressure may still be high enough for PPV to predict fluid responsiveness [3].

The findings of Lakhal and colleagues [1] perhaps provide insufficient support for the assertion that PPV is unable to predict volume responsiveness in ARDS patients ventilated with low Vt. Additional studies in severe ARDS patients (compliance <30 cmH2O) are necessary to investigate whether or not PPV could be used in such cases.

Authors' response: In ARDS, stiff lungs keep the pressure inside

Stephan Ehrmann, Karim Lakhal and Thierry Boulain

We thank Dr Mallat and colleagues for giving us the opportunity to clarify some physiological points tackled in our study [1]. Their assertion that 'the mean static compliance was not very low(...); therefore, the percentage of transmission of alveolar pressure to the pleural space was not really altered' is in accordance with Jardin and colleagues findings [4] and their recalculated data [5]: the lower the lung compliance, the lower the alveolar-to-pleural space transmission of pressure. By contrast, in the case of lower respiratory system compliance [Crs], the alveolar-to-pleural pressure transmission may be altered in quite different ways, depending on the causal mechanism: stiffer chest wall with no change in lung compliance leads to an increase in respiratory pleural pressure changes [ΔPpleural] [6]; and stiffer lungs lead to lower ΔPpleural (and lower respiratory variations in pulse pressure (ΔRESPPP)) for similar changes in alveolar pressure (ΔPalveolar). Importantly, the latter is the predominant mechanism of low Crs in ARDS [7].

In ARDS, two phenomena work in opposite directions for a given Vt [4, 5]: (i) high Palveolar swings increase ΔPpleural but (ii) high lung stiffness prevents Palveolar from being transmitted to the pleural space, therefore lowering ΔPpleural. Confusion may arise when one takes the 'pressure transmission-reasoning shortcut' and thinks, as Dr Mallat and colleagues do, that the first phenomenon outweighs the second. Actually, basic physiological equations (ΔPpleural = Vt/Chest wall compliance) remind us that ΔPpleural depends only on the Vt [5] and chest wall compliance [6] and not on lung compliance: the increase in Palveolar (induced by decreased lung compliance) does not outweigh, but exactly compensates, the decrease in alveolar-to-pleural space transmission of pressure, as previously observed [4, 5]. Further, other limitations for ΔRESPPP (heart-to-respiratory rate ratio or acute corpulmonale [1]) would become even more prominent in a severe ARDS population, and further studies are likely to yield the same conclusion: ΔRESPPP fails to predict fluid responsiveness in ARDS.

Abbreviations

ARDS: 

acute respiratory distress syndrome

Crs: 

respiratory system compliance

Palveolar

alveolar pressure

Ppleural

pleural pressure

PPV: 

respiratory pulse pressure variation

Vt: 

tidal volume.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Service de Réanimation Polyvalente, Centre hospitalier Dr Schaffner de Lens

References

  1. Lakhal K, Ehrmann S, Benzekri-Lefèvre D, Runge I, Legras A, Dequin PF, Mercier E, Wolf M, Régnier B, Boulain T: Respiratory pulse pressure variation fails to predict fluid responsiveness in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care 2011, 15: R85. 10.1186/cc10083PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Briel M, Meade M, Mercat A, Brower RG, Talmor D, Walter SD, Slutsky AS, Pullenayegum E, Zhou Q, Cook D, Brochard L, Richard JC, Lamontagne F, Bhatnagar N, Stewart TE, Guyatt G: Higher vs lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2010, 303: 865-873. 10.1001/jama.2010.218View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Teboul JL, Vieillard-Baron A: Clinical value of pulse pressure variations in ARDS: still an unresolved issue? Intensive Care Med 2005, 31: 499-500. 10.1007/s00134-005-2587-3View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Jardin F, Genevray B, Brun-Ney D, Bourdarias JP: Influence of lung and chest wall compliances on transmission of airway pressure to the pleural space in critically ill patients. Chest 1985, 88: 653-658. 10.1378/chest.88.5.653View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. De Backer D, Heenen S, Piagnerelli M, Koch M, Vincent JL: Pulse pressure variations to predict fluid responsiveness: influence of tidal volume. Intensive Care Med 2005, 31: 517-523. 10.1007/s00134-005-2586-4View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Perel A, Pizov R, Cotev S: Systolic blood pressure variation is a sensitive indicator of hypovolemia in ventilated dogs subjected to graded hemorrhage. Anesthesiology 1987, 67: 498-502. 10.1097/00000542-198710000-00009View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Malhotra A: Low-tidal-volume ventilation in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2007, 357: 1113-1120. 10.1056/NEJMct074213PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© BioMed Central Ltd 2011