Cardiopulmonary interactions-which monitoring tools to use?

Heart-lung interactions occur due to the mechanical influence of intrathoracic pressure and lung volume changes on cardiac and circulatory function. These interactions manifest as respiratory fluctuations in venous, pulmonary, and arterial pressures, potentially affecting stroke volume. In the context of functional hemodynamic monitoring, pulse or stroke volume variation (pulse pressure variation or stroke volume variability) are commonly employed to assess volume or preload responsiveness. However, correct interpretation of these parameters requires a comprehensive understanding of the physiological factors that determine pulse pressure and stroke volume. These factors include pleural pressure, venous return, pulmonary vessel function, lung mechanics, gas exchange, and specific cardiac factors. A comprehensive knowledge of heart-lung physiology is vital to avoid clinical misjudgments, particularly in cases of right ventricular (RV) failure or diastolic dysfunction. Therefore, when selecting monitoring devices or technologies, these factors must be considered. Invasive arterial pressure measurements of variations in breath-to-breath pressure swings are commonly used to monitor heart-lung interactions. Echocardiography or pulmonary artery catheters are valuable tools for differentiating preload responsiveness from right ventricular failure, while changes in diastolic function should be assessed alongside alterations in airway or pleural pressure, which can be approximated by esophageal pressure. In complex clinical scenarios like ARDS, combined forms of shock or right heart failure, additional information on gas exchange and pulmonary mechanics aids in the interpretation of heart-lung interactions. This review aims to describe monitoring techniques that provide clinicians with an integrative understanding of a patient's condition, enabling accurate assessment and patient care.

Experimental validation of a mean systemic pressure analog against zero-flow measurements in porcine VA-ECMO.

The mean systemic pressure analog (Pmsa), calculated from running hemodynamic data, estimates mean systemic filling pressure (MSFP). This post hoc study used data from a porcine veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) model [n = 9; Sus scrofa domesticus; ES breed (Schweizer Edelschwein)] with eight experimental conditions; Euvolemia [a volume state where ECMO flow produced normal mixed venous saturation (SVO2) without vascular collapse]; three levels of increasing norepinephrine infusion (Vasoconstriction 1-3); status after stopping norepinephrine (Post Vasoconstriction); and three steps of volume expansion (10 mL/kg crystalloid bolus) (Volume Expansion 1-3). In each condition, Pmsa and a "reduced-pump-speed-Pmsa" (Pmsared) were calculated from baseline and briefly reduced pump speeds, respectively. We calculated agreement for absolute values (per condition) and changes (between consecutive conditions) of Pmsa and Pmsared, against MSFP at zero ECMO flow. Euvolemia venous return driving pressure was 5.1 ± 2.0 mmHg. Bland-Altman analysis for Pmsa vs. MSFP (all conditions; 72 data pairs) showed bias (confidence interval) 0.5 (0.1-0.9) mmHg; limits of agreement (LoA) -2.7 to 3.8 mmHg. Bias for ΔPmsa vs. ΔMSFP (63 data pairs): 0.2 (-0.2 to 0.6) mmHg, LoA -3.2 to 3.6 mmHg. Bias for Pmsared vs. MSFP (72 data pairs): 0.0 (-0.3 to -0.3) mmHg; LoA -2.3 to 2.4 mmHg. Bias for ΔPmsared vs. ΔMSFP (63 data pairs) was 0.2 (-0.1 to 0.4) mmHg; LoA -1.8 to 2.1 mmHg. In conclusion, during veno-arterial ECMO, under clinically relevant levels of vasoconstriction and volume expansion, Pmsa accurately estimated absolute and changing values of MSFP, with low between-method precision. The within-method precision of Pmsa was excellent, with a least significant change of 0.15 mmHg.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This is the first study ever to validate the mean systemic pressure analog (Pmsa) against the reference mean systemic filling pressure (MSFP) determined at full arterio-venous pressure equilibrium. Using a porcine ECMO model with clinically relevant levels of vasoconstriction and volume expansion, we showed that Pmsa accurately estimated absolute and changing values of MSFP, with a poor between-method precision. The within-method precision of Pmsa was excellent.

Effect of volume status on the estimation of mean systemic filling pressure.

Various methods for indirect assessment of mean systemic filling pressure (MSFP) produce controversial results compared with MSFP at zero blood flow. We recently reported that the difference between MSFP at zero flow measured by right atrial balloon occlusion (MSFPRAO) and MSFP estimated using inspiratory holds depends on the volume status. We now compare three indirect estimates of MSFP with MSFPRAO in euvolemia, bleeding, and hypervolemia in a model of anesthetized pigs (n = 9) with intact circulation. MSFP was estimated using instantaneous beat-to-beat venous return during tidal ventilation (MSFPinst_VR), right atrial pressure-flow data pairs at flow nadir during inspiratory holds (MSFPnadir_hold), and a dynamic model analog adapted to pigs (MSFPa). MSFPRAO was underestimated by MSFPnadir_hold and MSFPa in all volume states. Volume status modified the difference between MSFPRAO and all indirect methods (method × volume state interaction, P ≤ 0.020). All methods tracked changes in MSFPRAO concordantly, with the lowest bias seen for MSFPa [bias (confidence interval): -0.4 (-0.7 to -0.0) mmHg]. We conclude that indirect estimates of MSFP are unreliable in this experimental setup. NEW & NOTEWORTHY For indirect estimations of MSFP using inspiratory hold maneuvers, instantaneous beat-to-beat venous return, or a dynamic model analog, the accuracy was affected by the underlying volume state. All methods investigated tracked changes in MSFPRAO concordantly.