Back to Search
Start Over
Are We Always Right? Evaluation of the Performance and Knowledge of the Passive Leg Raise Test in Detecting Volume Responsiveness in Critical Care Patients: A National German Survey.
- Source :
- Journal of Clinical Medicine; May2024, Vol. 13 Issue 9, p2518, 13p
- Publication Year :
- 2024
-
Abstract
- Background: In hemodynamically unstable patients, the passive leg raise (PLR) test is recommended for use as a self-fluid challenge for predicting preload responsiveness. However, to interpret the hemodynamic effects and reliability of the PLR, the method of performing it is of the utmost importance. Our aim was to determine the current practice of the correct application and interpretation of the PLR in intensive care patients. Methods: After ethical approval, we designed a cross-sectional online survey with a short user-friendly online questionnaire. Using a random sample of 1903 hospitals in Germany, 182 hospitals with different levels of care were invited via an email containing a link to the questionnaire. The online survey was conducted between December 2021 and January 2022. All critical care physicians from different medical disciplines were surveyed. We evaluated the correct points of concern for the PLR, including indication, contraindication, choice of initial position, how to interpret and apply the changes in cardiac output, and the limitations of the PLR. Results: A total of 292 respondents participated in the online survey, and 283/292 (97%) of the respondents completed the full survey. In addition, 132/283 (47%) were consultants and 119/283 (42%) worked at a university medical center. The question about the performance of the PLR was answered correctly by 72/283 (25%) of the participants. The limitations of the PLR, such as intra-abdominal hypertension, were correctly selected by 150/283 (53%) of the participants. The correct effect size (increase in stroke volume ≥ 10%) was correctly identified by 217/283 (77%) of the participants. Conclusions: Our results suggest a considerable disparity between the contemporary practice of the correct application and interpretation of the PLR and the practice recommendations from recently published data at German ICUs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 20770383
- Volume :
- 13
- Issue :
- 9
- Database :
- Complementary Index
- Journal :
- Journal of Clinical Medicine
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 177180612
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13092518