Key result
Baseline SBP < 101 mmHg and mitral inflow velocity predict preload responsiveness during passive leg raising.
Why the study?
Passive leg raising is commonly used to assess fluid responsiveness, but the effect of blood pressure on passive leg raising-induced stroke volume response was unknown.
Does passive leg raising improve stroke volume in normotensive, hypotensive, and hypertensive individuals?
Case-Control (n=170)
No
Does passive leg raising improve stroke volume in normotensive, hypotensive, and hypertensive individuals?
Blood pressure and left ventricular diastolic function parameters, specifically baseline systolic blood pressure < 101 mmHg and E wave < 0.77 m/s, determine stroke volume responsiveness to passive leg raising.
These thresholds require validation in patients before use; hypothesis-generating for BP effects on PLR responsiveness in healthy adults.
Passive leg raising (PLR) is a common maneuver to assess fluid responsiveness in the emergency department. The effect of blood pressure (BP) on PLR-induced left ventricular (LV) stroke volume (SV) response was examined in normotensive (CON, n = 100), hypotensive (HOTN, n = 51) and hypertensive (HTN, n = 16) individuals. Limb BP and Echo measurements were completed within 1 min when the participants were transitioned from the semi-recumbent position to bilateral leg elevation at 45° and lower limb BP was reduced at PLR in all three groups. LV end-diastolic diameter (LVDD), LV end-systolic diameter (LVDS), end-systolic or end-diastolic volume (ESV, EDV) were comparable at baseline among three groups, whereas E, E/A ratio, and deceleration time were significantly lower and A was significantly greater in the HOTN and HTN groups compared with the CON group (p < 0.05). Notably, EDV, LVDD and SV, cardiac output, ejection fraction, and fractional shortening were increased significantly after PLR only in HOTN group (p < 0.05). EDV and SV were positively correlated with E and the E/A ratio in HOTN (p < 0.05), whereas a negative correlation was observed in CON group (p < 0.05). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis demonstrated that baseline E < 0.77 m/s and systolic BP < 101 mmHg effectively predicted an SV increase of > 15% at PLR with good sensitivity and specificity. Mean arterial pressure, diastolic BP and E wave velocity confine SV responsiveness to PLR even in CON individuals. These findings indicate inherent physiological thresholds for SV augmentation via the Frank-Starling mechanism even in the general population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yan et al. (2026) conducted a case-control in Hemodynamic responsiveness (n=170). Passive leg raising vs. Baseline (semi-recumbent position) was evaluated on Prediction of stroke volume increase ≥ 15% after passive leg raising by baseline systolic blood pressure (AUC 0.751, 95% CI 65.9%-84.3%, p=<0.001). Baseline systolic blood pressure < 101 mmHg and early mitral inflow velocity < 0.77 m/s effectively predicted a stroke volume increase of > 15% during passive leg raising.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: