Easy method to determine fluid responsiveness in septic shock patients: end-tidal CO2 - a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND

In critically ill patients, especially those with septic shock, fluid management can be a challenging aspect of clinical care. One of the primary steps in treating patients with hemodynamic instability is optimizing intravascular volume. The Passive Leg Raising (PLR) maneuver is a reliable test for assessing fluid responsiveness, as demonstrated by numerous studies and meta-analyses. However, its use requires the measurement of cardiac output, which is often complex and may necessitate clinician experience and specialized equipment. End-Tidal Carbon Dioxide (ETCO2) measurement is relatively easy and is generally stable under steady metabolic conditions. It depends on the body's CO2 production, diffusion of CO2 from the lungs into the bloodstream, and cardiac output. If the other two parameters (metabolic conditions and minute ventilation) are constant, ETCO2 can provide information about cardiac output. The aim of the present study is to investigate the sensitivity of ETCO2 measurement in demonstrating fluid responsiveness.

METHODS

All patients diagnosed with septic shock and meeting the inclusion criteria were subjected to a passive leg raising test, and cardiac outputs were measured by echocardiography. An increase in cardiac output of 15% or more was considered indicative of the fluid responder group, while patients with an increase below 15% or no increase were classified as the non-responder group. Patients' intensive care unit admission diagnoses, initial laboratory parameters, tidal volume, minute volume before and after the PLR maneuver, mean and systolic blood pressure, heart rate, Pulse Pressure Variation (PPV) values, and ETCO2 values were recorded.

RESULTS

Before and after the ETCO2 test, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. However, the change in ETCO2 (ΔETCO2) was significantly higher in the responder group. In the non-responder group, ΔETCO2 was 2.57% (0.81), whereas it was 5.71% (2.83) in the responder group (p<0.001). Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed for ΔETCO2, baseline Stroke Volume Variation (SVV), ΔSVV, baseline Heart Rate (HR), ΔHR, baseline PPV, and ΔPPV to predict fluid responsiveness. ΔETCO2 predicted fluid responsiveness with a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 86% when it was 4% or higher. When ΔETCO2 was 5% or higher, it predicted fluid responsiveness with a specificity of 99.3% and a sensitivity of 75.5%, with an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.828-0.961).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that in septic patients, ETCO2 during the PLR test can indicate fluid responsiveness with high sensitivity and specificity and can be used as an alternative to cardiac output measurement.