被动抬腿的五个规则

Monnet and Teboul Critical Care DOI 10.1186/s13054-014-0708-5

Passive leg raising:five rules, not a drop of fluid!

Xavier Monnet 1,2*and Jean-Louis Teboul 1,2

In acute circulatory failure, passive leg raising (PLR)is a test that predicts whether cardiac output will increase with volume expansion [1].By transferring a volume of around 300mL of venous blood [2]from the lower body toward the right heart, PLR mimics a fluid challenge. However, no fluid is infused and the hemodynamic effects are rapidly reversible [1,3],thereby avoiding the risks of fluid overload. This test has the advantage of remaining reliable in conditions in which indices of fluid responsive-ness that are based on the respiratory variations of stroke volume cannot be used [1],like spontaneous breathing, arrhythmias, low tidal volume ventilation, and low lung compliance.

The method for performing PLR is of the utmost importance because it fundamentally affects its hemody-namic effects and reliability. In practice, five rules should be followed.

First, PLR should start from the semi-recumbent and not the supine position (Figure1). Adding trunk lower-ing to leg raising should mobilize venous blood from the large splanchnic compartment, thus magnifying the in-creasing effects of leg elevation on cardiac preload [2]and increasing the test ’s sensitivity. A study that did not com-ply with this rule misleadingly reported a poor reliability of PLR [4].

Second, the PLR effects must be assessed by a direct measurement of cardiac output and not by the simple measurement of blood pressure. Indeed, reliability of PLR is poorer when assessed by using arterial pulse pres-sure compared with cardiac output [1,5].Although the peripheral arterial pulse pressure is positively correlated with stroke volume, it also depends on arterial compliance and pulse wave amplification. The latter phenomenon could be altered during PLR, impeding the use of pulse pressure as a surrogate of stroke volume to assess PLR effects.

Third, the technique used to measure cardiac output during PLR must be able to detect short-term and tran-sient changes since the PLR effects may vanish after 1minute [1].Techniques monitoring cardiac output in ‘real time ’, such as arterial pulse contour analysis, echo-cardiography, esophageal Doppler, or contour analysis of the volume clamp-derived arterial pressure, can be used [6].Conflicting results have been reported for bioreac-tance [7,8].The hemodynamic response to PLR can even be assessed by the changes in end-tidal exhaled carbon dioxide, which reflect the changes in cardiac output in the case of constant minute ventilation [5].

Fourth, cardiac output must be measured not only before and during PLR but also after PLR when the patient has been moved back to the semi-recumbent position, in order to check that it returns to its base-line (Figure1). Indeed, in unstable patients, cardiac output changes during PLR could result from spontaneous varia-tions inherent to the disease and not from cardiac preload changes.

Fifth, pain, cough, discomfort, and awakening could provoke adrenergic stimulation, resulting in mistaken interpretation of cardiac output changes. Some simple precautions must be taken to avoid these confounding factors (Figure1). PLR must be performed by adjusting the bed and not by manually raising the patient ’s legs. Bronchial secretions must be carefully aspirated before PLR. If awake, the patient should be informed of what the test involves. A misleading sympathetic stimulation can be suspected if PLR is accompanied by a significant increase in heart rate, which normally should not occur. It has been suggested that PLR is unreliable in the case of intra-abdominal hypertension [9].The increased abdom-inal weight was hypothesized to squeeze the inferior vena cava in the raised-leg position [10].Nevertheless, the single study investigating this issue did not confirm the hypoth-esis since intra-abdominal pressure was not measured during PLR [9].Furthermore, one could hypothesize that

*Correspondence:[email protected]

Service de réanimationmédicale,Hôpitalde Bicêtre,HôpitauxUniversitaires Paris-Sud, 78, rue du GénéralLeclerc, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre,Paris F-94270, France 2

Facultéde médecineParis-Sud, UniversitéParis-Sud, EA4533, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre,Paris F-94270,

France

2015Monnet and Teboul; licensee BioMed Central. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0),which permits unrestricted use,

distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Monnet and Teboul Critical Care Page 2of 3

PLR reduces rather than increases the intra-abdominal pressure by relieving the weight of the diaphragm on the abdominal cavity.

Provided that these simple rules are followed, the PLR test reliably predicts preload responsiveness [11].Because it has no side effects, PLR should be considered as a replacement for the classic fluid challenge [12].The main drawback of the fluid challenge is that, if it is negative, fluid has nonetheless been irreversibly administered to the patient. Repeated fluid challenges therefore can lead to fluid overload. In this regard, PLR is an attractive method of challenging preload without administering one drop of fluid. Importantly, it should be remembered that detection of preload responsiveness by a positive PLR test should not routinely lead to fluid administration. Indeed, the decision to administer fluid must always be made indi-vidually on the basis of the mandatory presence of the three following situations:hemodynamic instability or signs of circulatory shock (orboth), preload responsive-ness (positivePLR test), and limited risks of fluid overload. Also, a negative PLR test should contribute mainly to the decision to stop or discontinue fluid infusion, in order to avoid fluid overload, suggesting that hemodynamic insta-bility should be corrected by means other than fluid administration.

Abbreviation

PLR:Passive leg raising.

Competing interests

XM and J-LT are members of the medical advisory board of Pulsion Medical Systems (Feldkirchen,Germany). As consultants for this company, they have

received honoraria. The company did not provide funding for the preparation of this

manuscript.

References

1. Monnet X, Rienzo M, Osman D, Anguel N, Richard C, Pinsky MR, Teboul JL:

Passive leg raising predicts fluid responsiveness in the critically ill. Crit Care Med 2006, 34:1402–1407.

2. Jabot J, Teboul JL, Richard C, Monnet X:Passive leg raising for predicting

fluid responsiveness:importance of the postural change. Intensive Care Med 2009, 35:85–90.

3. Boulain T, Achard JM, Teboul JL, Richard C, Perrotin D, Ginies G:Changes in

BP induced by passive leg raising predict response to fluid loading in critically ill patients. Chest 2002, 121:1245–1252.

4. Lakhal K, Ehrmann S, Runge I, Benzekri-Lefevre D, Legras A, Dequin PF,

Mercier E, Wolff M, Regnier B, Boulain T:Central venous pressure

measurements improve the accuracy of leg raising-induced change in pulse pressure to predict fluid responsiveness. Intensive Care Med 2010, 36:940–948.

5. Monnet X, Bataille A, Magalhaes E, Barrois J, Le Corre M, Gosset C, Guerin L,

Richard C, Teboul JL:End-tidal carbon dioxide is better than arterial

pressure for predicting volume responsiveness by the passive leg raising test. Intensive Care Med 2013, 39:93–100.

6. Bubenek-Turconi SI, Craciun M, Miclea I, Perel A:Noninvasive continuous

cardiac output by the Nexfin before and after preload-modifying maneuvers:a comparison with intermittent thermodilution cardiac output. Anesth Analg 2013, 117:366–372.

7. Marik PE, Levitov A, Young A, Andrews L:The use of bioreactance and

carotid Doppler to determine volume responsiveness and blood flow redistribution following passive leg raising in hemodynamically unstable patients. Chest 2013, 143:364–370.

8. Kupersztych-Hagege E, Teboul JL, Artigas A, Talbot A, Sabatier C, Richard C,

Monnet X:Bioreactance is not reliable for estimating cardiac output and the effects of passive leg raising in critically ill patients. Br J Anaesth 2013, 111:961–966.

9. Mahjoub Y, Touzeau J, Airapetian N, Lorne E, Hijazi M, Zogheib E, Tinturier F,

Slama M, Dupont H:The passive leg-raising maneuver cannot accurately predict fluid responsiveness in patients with intra-abdominal hypertension. Crit Care Med 2010, 38:1824–1829.

Monnet and Teboul Critical Care Page 3of 3

10. Malbrain ML, Reuter DA:Assessing fluid responsiveness with the

passive leg raising maneuver in patients with increased intra-abdominal pressure:be aware that not all blood returns! Crit Care Med 2010, 38:1912–1915.

11. Cavallaro F, Sandroni C, Marano C, La Torre G, Mannocci A, De Waure C,

Bello G, Maviglia R, Antonelli M:Diagnostic accuracy of passive leg raising for prediction of fluid responsiveness in adults:systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies. Intensive Care Med 2010, 36:1475–1483.

12. Vincent JL, Weil MH:Fluid challenge revisited. Crit Care Med 2006,

34:1333–1337.

Monnet and Teboul Critical Care DOI 10.1186/s13054-014-0708-5

Passive leg raising:five rules, not a drop of fluid!

Xavier Monnet 1,2*and Jean-Louis Teboul 1,2

In acute circulatory failure, passive leg raising (PLR)is a test that predicts whether cardiac output will increase with volume expansion [1].By transferring a volume of around 300mL of venous blood [2]from the lower body toward the right heart, PLR mimics a fluid challenge. However, no fluid is infused and the hemodynamic effects are rapidly reversible [1,3],thereby avoiding the risks of fluid overload. This test has the advantage of remaining reliable in conditions in which indices of fluid responsive-ness that are based on the respiratory variations of stroke volume cannot be used [1],like spontaneous breathing, arrhythmias, low tidal volume ventilation, and low lung compliance.

The method for performing PLR is of the utmost importance because it fundamentally affects its hemody-namic effects and reliability. In practice, five rules should be followed.

First, PLR should start from the semi-recumbent and not the supine position (Figure1). Adding trunk lower-ing to leg raising should mobilize venous blood from the large splanchnic compartment, thus magnifying the in-creasing effects of leg elevation on cardiac preload [2]and increasing the test ’s sensitivity. A study that did not com-ply with this rule misleadingly reported a poor reliability of PLR [4].

Second, the PLR effects must be assessed by a direct measurement of cardiac output and not by the simple measurement of blood pressure. Indeed, reliability of PLR is poorer when assessed by using arterial pulse pres-sure compared with cardiac output [1,5].Although the peripheral arterial pulse pressure is positively correlated with stroke volume, it also depends on arterial compliance and pulse wave amplification. The latter phenomenon could be altered during PLR, impeding the use of pulse pressure as a surrogate of stroke volume to assess PLR effects.

Third, the technique used to measure cardiac output during PLR must be able to detect short-term and tran-sient changes since the PLR effects may vanish after 1minute [1].Techniques monitoring cardiac output in ‘real time ’, such as arterial pulse contour analysis, echo-cardiography, esophageal Doppler, or contour analysis of the volume clamp-derived arterial pressure, can be used [6].Conflicting results have been reported for bioreac-tance [7,8].The hemodynamic response to PLR can even be assessed by the changes in end-tidal exhaled carbon dioxide, which reflect the changes in cardiac output in the case of constant minute ventilation [5].

Fourth, cardiac output must be measured not only before and during PLR but also after PLR when the patient has been moved back to the semi-recumbent position, in order to check that it returns to its base-line (Figure1). Indeed, in unstable patients, cardiac output changes during PLR could result from spontaneous varia-tions inherent to the disease and not from cardiac preload changes.

Fifth, pain, cough, discomfort, and awakening could provoke adrenergic stimulation, resulting in mistaken interpretation of cardiac output changes. Some simple precautions must be taken to avoid these confounding factors (Figure1). PLR must be performed by adjusting the bed and not by manually raising the patient ’s legs. Bronchial secretions must be carefully aspirated before PLR. If awake, the patient should be informed of what the test involves. A misleading sympathetic stimulation can be suspected if PLR is accompanied by a significant increase in heart rate, which normally should not occur. It has been suggested that PLR is unreliable in the case of intra-abdominal hypertension [9].The increased abdom-inal weight was hypothesized to squeeze the inferior vena cava in the raised-leg position [10].Nevertheless, the single study investigating this issue did not confirm the hypoth-esis since intra-abdominal pressure was not measured during PLR [9].Furthermore, one could hypothesize that

*Correspondence:[email protected]

Service de réanimationmédicale,Hôpitalde Bicêtre,HôpitauxUniversitaires Paris-Sud, 78, rue du GénéralLeclerc, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre,Paris F-94270, France 2

Facultéde médecineParis-Sud, UniversitéParis-Sud, EA4533, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre,Paris F-94270,

France

2015Monnet and Teboul; licensee BioMed Central. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0),which permits unrestricted use,

distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Monnet and Teboul Critical Care Page 2of 3

PLR reduces rather than increases the intra-abdominal pressure by relieving the weight of the diaphragm on the abdominal cavity.

Provided that these simple rules are followed, the PLR test reliably predicts preload responsiveness [11].Because it has no side effects, PLR should be considered as a replacement for the classic fluid challenge [12].The main drawback of the fluid challenge is that, if it is negative, fluid has nonetheless been irreversibly administered to the patient. Repeated fluid challenges therefore can lead to fluid overload. In this regard, PLR is an attractive method of challenging preload without administering one drop of fluid. Importantly, it should be remembered that detection of preload responsiveness by a positive PLR test should not routinely lead to fluid administration. Indeed, the decision to administer fluid must always be made indi-vidually on the basis of the mandatory presence of the three following situations:hemodynamic instability or signs of circulatory shock (orboth), preload responsive-ness (positivePLR test), and limited risks of fluid overload. Also, a negative PLR test should contribute mainly to the decision to stop or discontinue fluid infusion, in order to avoid fluid overload, suggesting that hemodynamic insta-bility should be corrected by means other than fluid administration.

Abbreviation

PLR:Passive leg raising.

Competing interests

XM and J-LT are members of the medical advisory board of Pulsion Medical Systems (Feldkirchen,Germany). As consultants for this company, they have

received honoraria. The company did not provide funding for the preparation of this

manuscript.

References

1. Monnet X, Rienzo M, Osman D, Anguel N, Richard C, Pinsky MR, Teboul JL:

Passive leg raising predicts fluid responsiveness in the critically ill. Crit Care Med 2006, 34:1402–1407.

2. Jabot J, Teboul JL, Richard C, Monnet X:Passive leg raising for predicting

fluid responsiveness:importance of the postural change. Intensive Care Med 2009, 35:85–90.

3. Boulain T, Achard JM, Teboul JL, Richard C, Perrotin D, Ginies G:Changes in

BP induced by passive leg raising predict response to fluid loading in critically ill patients. Chest 2002, 121:1245–1252.

4. Lakhal K, Ehrmann S, Runge I, Benzekri-Lefevre D, Legras A, Dequin PF,

Mercier E, Wolff M, Regnier B, Boulain T:Central venous pressure

measurements improve the accuracy of leg raising-induced change in pulse pressure to predict fluid responsiveness. Intensive Care Med 2010, 36:940–948.

5. Monnet X, Bataille A, Magalhaes E, Barrois J, Le Corre M, Gosset C, Guerin L,

Richard C, Teboul JL:End-tidal carbon dioxide is better than arterial

pressure for predicting volume responsiveness by the passive leg raising test. Intensive Care Med 2013, 39:93–100.

6. Bubenek-Turconi SI, Craciun M, Miclea I, Perel A:Noninvasive continuous

cardiac output by the Nexfin before and after preload-modifying maneuvers:a comparison with intermittent thermodilution cardiac output. Anesth Analg 2013, 117:366–372.

7. Marik PE, Levitov A, Young A, Andrews L:The use of bioreactance and

carotid Doppler to determine volume responsiveness and blood flow redistribution following passive leg raising in hemodynamically unstable patients. Chest 2013, 143:364–370.

8. Kupersztych-Hagege E, Teboul JL, Artigas A, Talbot A, Sabatier C, Richard C,

Monnet X:Bioreactance is not reliable for estimating cardiac output and the effects of passive leg raising in critically ill patients. Br J Anaesth 2013, 111:961–966.

9. Mahjoub Y, Touzeau J, Airapetian N, Lorne E, Hijazi M, Zogheib E, Tinturier F,

Slama M, Dupont H:The passive leg-raising maneuver cannot accurately predict fluid responsiveness in patients with intra-abdominal hypertension. Crit Care Med 2010, 38:1824–1829.

Monnet and Teboul Critical Care Page 3of 3

10. Malbrain ML, Reuter DA:Assessing fluid responsiveness with the

passive leg raising maneuver in patients with increased intra-abdominal pressure:be aware that not all blood returns! Crit Care Med 2010, 38:1912–1915.

11. Cavallaro F, Sandroni C, Marano C, La Torre G, Mannocci A, De Waure C,

Bello G, Maviglia R, Antonelli M:Diagnostic accuracy of passive leg raising for prediction of fluid responsiveness in adults:systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies. Intensive Care Med 2010, 36:1475–1483.

12. Vincent JL, Weil MH:Fluid challenge revisited. Crit Care Med 2006,

34:1333–1337.


相关文章

  • 幼儿园班级规则教育研究
  • 龙源期刊网 http://www.qikan.com.cn 幼儿园班级规则教育研究 作者:王雨虹 来源:<课程教育研究·中>2015年第01期 [摘要]幼儿园班级规则,对幼儿园教师来讲,良好的班级规范教育能够让幼儿自觉遵守幼儿园 ...查看


  • 8种基本时态及其被动结构
  • 英语8种基本时态 英语中表示不同时间发生的动作或存在的状态,需用不同的动词形式表示,这种不同的动词形式称为时态. 二.种类和用法: 1.一般现在时:表示现在或现阶段经常发生或习惯性的动作或状态及客观现实和普遍真理. 一般现在时常以动词原形表 ...查看


  • 幼儿园美工区活动观察记录表
  • 幼儿园美工区活动观察记录表 观察日期: 观察对象 评价项目 绘画 兴 趣 粘 贴 泥 工 评价标准 积极主动参与并选择 比较被动.目的性强 积极主动参与并选择 比较被动.目的性强 积极主动参与并选择 比较被动.目的性强 造 型 绘 能 画 ...查看


  • 初中英语复习提纲
  • 初中英语复习提纲 English 1. 名词: (1)可数名词及其单复数 (2)不可数名词 (3)专有名词 (4)名词所有格 2. 代词 (1)人称代词 (2)物主代词 (3)反身代词 (4)指示代词 (5)不定代词 (6)疑问代词 3. ...查看


  • [国务院关于新形势下加快知识产权强国建设的若干意见]解读?
  • "推动构建更加公平合理的国际知识产权规则.加强知识产权对外合作机制建设.加大对发展中国家知识产权援助力度.拓宽知识产权公共外交渠道."前不久出台的<国务院关于新形势下加快知识产权强国建设的若干意见>(下称&l ...查看


  • 英语语法-1
  • 课程编号:044120 课程名称:英语语法-1(English Grammar-1) <英语语法-1>教学大纲 课程类 专业基础课 别 适用专开课学学总学理论学 英语专业 1 2 30 30 业 期 分 时 时 与其他课程的联系 ...查看


  • 新目标英语知识要点
  • 新目标初中英语教学要点归纳 新目标七年级英语教学要点归纳: 一.语法知识. 1. 熟练掌握和运用一般现在时,现在进行时,一般过去时. 2. 能熟练进行各种句式转换.(肯定句,否定句,一般疑问句,特殊疑问句) 3. 能正确使用疑问代词(wha ...查看


  • 已整理初中各年级英语语法知识点
  • 初中各年级英语语法知识点 七年级上英语知识点 1.名词:名词的数(可数及不可数,可数名词的复数形式).名词所有格 2.代词:人称代词.物主代词及指示代词 3.数词:基数词和序数词 4.Be动词:肯定.否定.疑问.简略回答.缩写 5.介词:地 ...查看


  • 初中英语语法口诀歌
  • 初中英语语法口诀歌 ? 1.数词变化规律及读法口诀 两大数词基和序,前表数量后第几. 构成先谈基数词,1至12请认真记. 13至19teen 结尾齐,ty 结尾表示几十. 若要表达几十几,几十短横1到9. One hundred一百记,若表 ...查看


  • 川大[电子商务]第二次作业答案
  • 首页 - 我的作业列表 - <电子商务>第二次作业答案 欢迎你,窦建华(VC114158002) 你的得分: 100.0 完成日期:2015年12月12日 22点17分 说明: 每道小题括号里的答案是您最高分那次所选的答案,标准 ...查看


热门内容