Key result
Passive leg raising increased stroke volume in healthy men (108 to 117 ml, p<0.05), whereas head-down tilt did not (p>0.05), making healthy volunteers seem fluid responsive.
Why the study?
Head-down tilt and passive leg raising evaluate volume responsiveness using different reference positions, leaving it unclear whether they both identify normovolemia.
Does passive leg raising compared to head-down tilt differently affect stroke volume and cardiac output in healthy men?
RCT (n=10)
Randomized order
Does passive leg raising compared to head-down tilt differently affect stroke volume and cardiac output in healthy men?
Passive leg raising increases stroke volume by restoring central blood volume reduced in the semi-recumbent position, making healthy volunteers appear fluid responsive, unlike head-down tilt from a supine position.
PLR increases SV in healthy volunteers due to semi-recumbent reference; leaves open its validity for identifying normovolemia or fluid responsiveness in patients.
Volume responsiveness can be evaluated by tilting maneuvers such as head-down tilt (HDT) and passive leg raising (PLR), but the two procedures use different references (HDT the supine position; PLR the semi-recumbent position). We tested whether the two procedures identify "normovolemia" by evaluating the stroke volume (SV) and cardiac output (CO) responses and whether the peripheral perfusion index (PPI) derived from pulse oximetry provides similar information. In randomized order, 10 healthy men were exposed to both HDT and PLR, and evaluations were made also when the subjects fasted. Central cardiovascular variables were derived by pulse contour analysis and changes in central blood volume assessed by thoracic electrical admittance (TEA). During HDT, SV remained stable (fasted 110 ± 16 vs. 109 ± 16 ml; control 113 ± 16 vs. 111 ± 16 ml, p > 0.05) with no change in CO, TEA, PPI, or SV variation (SVV). In contrast during PLR, SV increased (fasted 108 ± 17 vs. 117 ± 17 ml; control 108 ± 18 vs. 117 ± 18 ml, p < 0.05) followed by an increase in TEA (p < 0.05) and CO increased when subjects fasted (6.7 ± 1.5 vs. 7.1 ± 1.5, p = 0.007) with no change in PPI or SVV. In conclusion, SV has a maximal value for rest in supine men, while PLR restores SV as CBV is reduced in a semi-recumbent position and the procedure thereby makes healthy volunteers seem fluid responsive.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sejersen et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Healthy (n=10). Passive leg raising (PLR) vs. Head-down tilt (HDT) was evaluated on Stroke volume (SV) response (p=<0.05). Passive leg raising increased stroke volume in healthy men (108 to 117 ml, p<0.05), whereas head-down tilt did not (p>0.05), making healthy volunteers seem fluid responsive.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: