Abstract
Background
Mean systemic filling pressure (Pmsf) can be determined at the bedside by measuring central venous pressure (Pcv) and cardiac output (CO) during inspiratory hold maneuvers. Critical closing pressure (Pcc) can be determined using the same method measuring arterial pressure (Pa) and CO. If Pcc > Pmsf there is then a vascular waterfall. In this study we assessed the existence of a waterfall and its implications for the calculation of vascular resistances by determining Pmsf and Pcc at the bedside.
Methods
In 10 mechanically ventilated postcardiac surgery patients inspiratory hold maneuvers were performed, transiently increasing Pcv and decreasing Pa and CO to four different steady-state levels. For each patient values of Pcv and CO were plotted in a venous return curve to determine Pmsf. Similarly, Pcc was determined with a ventricular output curve plotted for Pa and CO. Measurements were performed in each patient before and after volume expansion with 0.5 l colloid and vascular resistances were calculated.
Results
For every patient the relationship between the four measurements of Pcv and CO and of Pa and CO was linear. Baseline Pmsf was 18.7±4.0 (mean±SD) mmHg and differed significantly from Pcc 45.5±11.1 mmHg; (p<0.0001). The difference of Pcc and Pmsf was 26.8±10.7 mmHg, indicating the presence of a systemic vascular waterfall. Volume expansion increased Pmsf (26.3±3.2 mmHg), Pcc (51.5±9.0 mmHg) and CO (5.5±1.8 to 6.8±1.8 l·min−1). Arterial (upstream of Pcc) and venous (down-stream of Pmsf) vascular resistance were 8.27±4.45 and 2.75±1.23 mmHg·min·l−1; the sum of both (11.01 mmHg·min·l−1) was significantly different from total systemic vascular resistance (16.56±8.57 mmHg·min·l−1, p=0.005). Arterial resistance was related to total resistance.
Conclusions
Vascular pressure gradients in cardiac surgery patients suggest the presence of a vascular waterfall phenomenon, which is not affected by CO. Thus measures of total systemic vascular resistance may become irrelevant in assessing systemic vasomotor tone.
Introduction
In the classical view cardiac output (CO) is determined by cardiac function (contractility, heart rate), preload and afterload, despite Guyton’s studies on venous return.1 For short time periods venous return and CO can differ, but averaged over time venous return must be equal to CO. When the heart is stopped and a large arteriovenous fistula opened, arterial and venous pressures rapidly equilibrate to one pressure, which is called mean systemic filling pressure (Pmsf).2 Pmsf reflects the mean weighted up-stream pressure for venous return to the heart. The difference between Pmsf and right atrial pressure or central venous pressure (Pcv) during steady-state flow represents the pressure gradient for venous return, and if CO is known, one can calculate the resistance to venous return as the ratio of driving pressure to flow. Recently we demonstrated that it was possible to determine Pmsf at the bedside in mechanically ventilated postcardiac surgery patients with an intact circulation.3 Applying inspiratory holds of increasing airway pressure levels Pcv increases and CO decreases to a steady-state level (Figure 1). From the values of Pcv and CO at different airway pressures, a venous return curve can be constructed (Figure 2). When CO is extrapolated to zero, Pcv will equal Pmsf. Pmsf is in turn determined by stressed blood volume and systemic vascular compliance. Thus, measuring Pmsf allows more insight into variables and mechanisms that control the peripheral circulation in critically ill patients, such as systemic venous resistance (Rv), stressed and unstressed volume and vascular compliance.4,5
Figure 1.
Effects of an inspiratory hold maneuver on arterial pressure (Prad), central venous pressure (Pcv), airway pressure (Pvent) and beat to beat cardiac output (COmf). Preceding the hold maneuver the effects of a normal ventilatory cycle are plotted. Note the rapid restoration to baseline (within 4 seconds).
Figure 2.
Relationship between cardiac output (CO) and central venous pressure (Pcv) in a venous return curve and between CO and arterial blood pressure (Pa) in a ventricular output curve for an individual patient. Extrapolation to the zeroflow intercept leads to mean systemic filling pressure (Pmsf) for the venous return curve and to critical closing pressure (Pcc) for the ventricular output curve.
During ventricular fibrillation for testing an implantable cardioverter/defibrillator in humans both Pcv and arterial blood pressure (Pa) were measured and a gap between Pa and Pcv persisted.6–8 This gap between Pa and Pcv was also found in dogs on cardiac bypass after stopping bypass for 20 seconds.9 This stop-flow Pa value is called the arterial critical closing pressure (Pcc). Thus, arterial Pcc is the pressure under which the flow between the arterial and venous side of circulation is stopped despite the persistence of a pressure gradient. Beyond this critical closing locus vascular pressures decrease rapidly to Pmsf. If there is a Pcc to Pmsf pressure gradient, we refer to it as a vascular waterfall. Once blood flows over the Pcc edge of the waterfall, the height of the waterfall has no effect on flow. With our technique of inspiratory hold maneuvers to calculate Pmsf as the zero flow intercept of venous pressure we can also determine Pcc as the zero intercept of Pa. These measurements can be performed at the bedside and in patients with a beating heart and blood flow.3
The existence of a vascular waterfall has implications for the calculation of systemic vascular resistance and in our understanding of the determinants of blood flow distribution.10 Traditionally total systemic vascular resistance is defined as Rs=[Pa−Pcv]/CO. However, this construct taken from the electrical circuit theory of current flowing through a wire presumes a constant pressure decrease from input site to output site, such that increasing output pressure (Pcv) decreases this pressure gradient and thus decreases CO. In the presence of a waterfall (or Starling resistor) there are 2 separate pressure gradients, one Pa gradient from the central arterial circuit (Pa) to Pcc and another venous pressure gradient from Pmsf to Pcv. Thus two separate but in series vascular resistances can be identified, one upstream of Pcc defining arterial resistance (Ra) and one downstream of Pmsf defining Rv.
The aim of our study was to determine whether there is a Pcc to Pmsf pressure gradient during steady-state flow conditions at the bedside and if so how changes in CO due to intravascular volume loading might affect it. We hypothesized that intravascular fluid administration will increase Pmsf and CO but not change Pcc.
Methods
Ten postoperative patients after aortic valve replacement, mitral valve surgery or coronary artery bypass surgery instrumented with a pulmonary artery catheter were included in the study. The study was approved by the University Medical Ethics Committee of Leiden University and the University of Pittsburgh, whereas the study was performed in Leiden University Medical Center. Patient’s written informed consent was obtained. Patients with congestive heart failure (New York Heart Association class 4), postoperative valvular insufficiency, aortic aneurysm or extensive peripheral arterial vascular disease, postoperative arrhythmia or intraaortic balloon counter-pulsation were excluded.
Postoperative anesthesia was maintained with propofol and sufentanil. Patients’ lungs were mechanically ventilated (Evita4 servo ventilator Draeger, Lubeck, Germany) in synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation mode with tidal volumes of 6–8 ml·kg−1 and a respiratory rate of 12–14 breaths·min−1 to achieve normocapnia (arterial PCO2 between 40–45 mmHg). A positive end-expiratory pressure of 5 cmH2O and a fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) of 0.4 were applied. During the study period all patients were hemodynamically stable and no changes in vasoactive medication were made.
Arterial blood pressure was monitored via a 20-G, 3.8 cm long fluid-filled radial artery catheter. Pcv was measured with a central venous catheter inserted in the right internal jugular vein (MultiCath 3 venous catheter, Vigon GmbH & Co, Aachen, Germany). Both were connected to pressure transducers (PX600F, Edwards Lifesciences) and referenced to the intersection of the anterior axillary line and the fifth intercostal space. Airway pressure was measured at the entrance of the endotracheal tube and balanced at zero level against ambient air. CO was obtained beat-to-beat by modelflow pulse contour analysis as previously described and validated.11–13
Within 1 hour after arrival at the intensive care unit, the protocol started and mechanical ventilation was switched from synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation to airway pressure release ventilation to allow external control of the ventilator to perform inspiratory hold maneuvers. Respiratory rate, FiO2, positive end-expiratory pressure, and tidal volumes were kept unchanged. No spontaneous breathing efforts were observed during the study. Pa and Pcv were recorded at a sample frequency of 100 Hz and 0.2 mmHg resolution on computer disk for offline data analysis. We calibrated the pulse contour CO measurements with 3 thermodilution CO measurements equally spread over the ventilatory cycle. During the observation period no changes were made in ventilatory settings, sedation and vasoactive medication.
Steady-state Pa, Pcv and CO were measured over the last 3 seconds of 12-second inspiratory hold maneuvers at plateau pressures of 5, 15, 25 and 35 cmH2O, as we previously described by us.3 With increasing airway pressure, Pcv increases and CO and Pa decrease to a steady-state between 7 and 12 seconds after start of the inspiratory hold (Figure 1). The resulting values of Pcv were plotted against CO in a venous return curve for the four inspiratory hold procedures and a linear regression line was fitted through these data points (Figure 2). Similarly, in a ventricular output curve Pa was plotted against CO for the same inspiratory hold maneuvers (Figure 2). Measurements were done during baseline conditions and after administration of 500 ml hydroxyethyl starch (130/0.4) over 15 minutes to assess changes in CO, Pcc and Pmsf after intravascular volume expansion for each patient.
Pmsf was defined as the zero flow intercept of the venous return curve as previously described.3 Pcc was the extrapolation of Pa to zero flow in the ventricular output curve (Figure 2). For each patient linear regressions for the four pairs of Pcv and CO, and of Pa and CO were fitted using a least-squares method. Lilliefors’ method was used to test for normality. The pairwise differences for Pcc at baseline and after intravascular fluid administration, and for the pairwise differences for Rs and the sum of Rv and Ra, were inconsistent with normal distribution. The other pairwise data were not inconsistent with normal distribution (p > 0.05). The differences between Pmsf and Pcc were tested by a paired Student’s t-test. A significant difference between Pmsf and Pcc was considered consistent with a vascular waterfall. Systemic arterial vascular resistance was defined as Ra=[Pa−Pcc]/CO, and systemic venous vascular resistance as Rv=[Pmsf−Pcv]/CO. Total systemic vascular resistance was calculated as Rs=[Pa−Pcv]/CO. The difference between Rs and the sum of Ra and Rv, reflecting the hydrostatic energy loss across the vascular waterfall, was tested with a Wilcoxon signed ranks test. Linear regression between Ra and Rs include 95% confidence interval (95%CI) for bias and slope, together with the Pearson correlation. The changes in CO, Pmsf, Pcc, the gap between Pcc and Pmsf, Ra, Rv and the slopes of both the venous return and the ventricular output curves induced by intravascular volume expansion were tested by paired Student’s t-tests or Wilcoxon signed ranks test as indicated by the Lilliefors’ test for normality. Data are presented as mean ± SD. Differences with a p < 0.05 were considered significant.
Results
Ten patients were included in the study. Patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. The venous return and ventricular output curves data for all individuals before and after 500 ml intravascular fluid administration shown in Table 2. The goodness of fit of these curves through the data obtained from the inspiratory hold maneuvers, given by R2, is remarkably high. The slopes of the venous return and ventricular output curves as well as the values for Pmsf and Pcc ranged over 2:1 ratios indicating significant different hemodynamic conditions for individual patients.
Table 1.
Patient characteristics
| No | Sex | Age (yrs) | Weight (kg) | Length (cm) | Surgery | Inotropics (μg.kg−1.min−1) | Propofol (mg.h−1) | Sufentanil (μg.h−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M | 60 | 80 | 172 | CABG | 300 | 15 | |
| 2 | M | 57 | 78 | 169 | CABG | Dobu 2 | 300 | 15 |
| 3 | M | 79 | 78 | 174 | AVR | Dobu 5 | 200 | 10 |
| 4 | M | 50 | 90 | 190 | AVR | NPN 0.25 | 300 | 15 |
| 5 | M | 80 | 90 | 172 | CABG | Nor 0.01 | 200 | 10 |
| 6 | F | 64 | 83 | 167 | CABG | Nor 0.04, Dobu 3 | 200 | 10 |
| 7 | M | 50 | 112 | 183 | CABG | Nor 0.06 | 500 | 15 |
| 8 | M | 71 | 73 | 179 | CABG | Nor 0.09, Dobu 5 | 120 | 5 |
| 9 | M | 75 | 95 | 173 | CABG | 300 | 10 | |
| 10 | M | 56 | 69 | 175 | MVP+TVP | Nor 0.06 | 170 | 10 |
|
| ||||||||
| mean | 64 | 85 | 175 | 259 | 12 | |||
| SD | 11 | 12 | 7 | 107 | 3 | |||
CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; AVR, aortic valve replacement; MVP+TVP, mitral valve and tricuspid valve repair; Dobu, dobutamine; NPN, nitroprusside sodium; Nor, norepinephrine; SD, standard deviation.
Table 2.
Venous return and ventricular output curves for all individuals before and after 500 ml intravascular fluid administration
| No | Baseline slope Pmsf L·min−1 ·mmHg−1 | R2 | Pmsf mmHg | slope Pcc L·min−1·mmHg−1 | R2 | Pcc mm Hg | After 500 mL intravascular fluid administration slope Pmsf L·min−1·mmHg−1 | R2 | Pmsf mmHg | slope Pcc L·min−1·mmHg−1 | R2 | Pcc mmHg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −0.548 | 0.996 | 15.5 | 0.145 | 0.949 | 38.7 | −0.371 | 0.983 | 28.7 | 0.284 | 0.987 | 60.6 |
| 2 | −0.440 | 0.995 | 21.2 | 0.195 | 0.894 | 37.3 | −0.612 | 0.999 | 24.4 | 0.245 | 0.995 | 42.5 |
| 3 | −0.663 | 0.989 | 16.0 | 0.132 | 0.997 | 38.4 | −0.469 | 0.987 | 27.4 | 0.168 | 0.995 | 45.5 |
| 4 | −0.198 | 0.997 | 19.6 | 0.054 | 0.990 | 66.1 | −0.193 | 0.999 | 29.0 | 0.064 | 0.941 | 61.8 |
| 5 | −0.454 | 0.994 | 19.2 | 0.170 | 0.996 | 36.4 | −0.429 | 0.988 | 19.6 | 0.164 | 0.987 | 43.3 |
| 6 | −0.587 | 0.937 | 15.3 | 0.166 | 0.997 | 58.2 | −0.482 | 0.972 | 24.3 | 0.138 | 0.973 | 62.5 |
| 7 | −0.565 | 0.995 | 14.1 | 0.130 | 0.996 | 38.5 | −0.434 | 0.769 | 27.8 | 0.186 | 0.736 | 46.4 |
| 8 | −0.459 | 0.971 | 28.0 | 0.262 | 0.978 | 53.8 | −0.491 | 0.985 | 30.5 | 0.542 | 0.977 | 59.0 |
| 9 | −0.257 | 0.997 | 19.2 | 0.091 | 0.956 | 52.4 | −0.373 | 0.956 | 24.2 | 0.169 | 0.965 | 53.9 |
| 10 | −0.211 | 0.911 | 18.6 | 0.055 | 0.992 | 35.3 | −0.224 | 0.997 | 27.0 | 0.089 | 0.881 | 39.5 |
| Mean | −0.438 | 0.978 | 18.7 | 0.140 | 0.974 | 45.5 | −0.408 | 0.964 | 26.3 | 0.205 | 0.944 | 51.5 |
| SD | 0.164 | 0.030 | 4.0 | 0.064 | 0.033 | 11.1 | 0.125 | 0.070 | 3.2 | 0.135 | 0.081 | 9.0 |
Pmsf, mean systemic filling pressure; Pcc, critical closing pressure; SD, standard deviation.
Baseline measurements. In all patients a linear relationship between CO and Pcv and between CO and Pa was found, with an averaged slope of −0.438±0.164 (l·min−1·mmHg−1) and of 0.140±0.064 (l·min−1·mmHg−1), respectively. In Table 3 the hemodynamic values before and after intravascular volume administration are shown. Baseline mean Pmsf was 18.7±4.0 mmHg and mean Pcc was 45.5±11.1 mmHg. In every patient a pressure gap between Pcc and Pmsf was observed (range 16–46 mmHg). The values of Pmsf and Pcc were significantly different (p<0.0001) with a mean difference at baseline of 26.8±10.7 mmHg, indicating the presence of a vascular waterfall. Ignoring the presence of a waterfall, Rs would have been calculated as 16.56±8.57 mmHg·min·l−1. However, considering a waterfall, Ra was 8.27±4.45 mmHg·min·l−1, Rv was 2.75±1.23 mmHg·min·l−1 and the sum of Ra and Rv was 11.01±5.52 mmHg·min·l−1, which is significantly different from Rs (p=0.005) and reflects at least a 30% hydrodynamic energy loss across the vascular waterfall.
Table 3.
Hemodynamic data of patients at baseline condition and after intravascular volume expansion
| Baseline | Volume expansion | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mean | SD | mean | SD | p | |
| Pa (mmHg) | 85.5 | 15.4 | 91.4 | 13.5 | 0.059 |
| Pcv (mmHg) | 4.8 | 1.8 | 7.1 | 2.6 | 0.011 |
| CO (l·min−1) | 5.5 | 1.8 | 6.8 | 1.8 | 0.010 |
| HR (min−1) | 91 | 13 | 88 | 10 | 0.149 |
| SV (ml) | 61.5 | 20.2 | 78.5 | 18.7 | 0.012 |
| PP (mmHg) | 61.0 | 15.0 | 75.4 | 15.9 | 0.001 |
| Pcc (mmHg) | 45.5 | 11.1 | 51.5 | 9.0 | 0.013a |
| Pmsf (mmHg) | 18.7 | 4.0 | 26.3 | 3.2 | <0.001 |
| Slope VO (l·min−1·mmHg−1) | 0.140 | 0.064 | 0.205 | 0.135 | 0.046 |
| Slope VR (l·min−1·mmHg−1) | −0.438 | 0.164 | −0.408 | 0.125 | 0.450 |
| Pcc-Pmsf (mmHg) | 26.8 | 10.7 | 25.2 | 8.2 | 0.454 |
| Pmsf-Pcv (mmHg) | 13.8 | 4.0 | 19.2 | 3.1 | <0.0001 |
| Rs (mmHg·min·l−1) | 16.56 | 8.57 | 13.49 | 5.77 | 0.028 |
| Ra (mmHg·min·l−1) | 8.27 | 4.45 | 6.54 | 3.67 | 0.008 |
| Rv (mmHg·min·l−1) | 2.75 | 1.23 | 3.00 | 1.01 | 0.350 |
Values are means ± SD; n=10 patients. Pa, mean arterial blood pressure; Pcv, central venous pressure; CO, cardiac output; HR, heart rate; SV, stroke volume; PP, pulse pressure (systolic pressure – diastolic pressure); Pcc, critical closing pressure Pmsf, mean systemic filling pressure; VO, ventricular output curve; VR, venous return curve; Rs, total systemic vascular resistance; Ra, arterial vascular resistance; Rv, venous vascular resistance. Statistical comparison, p, paired t-test between baseline and volume expansion;
Wilcoxon signed ranks test.
Volume loading. Pmsf, Pcv, Pcc and CO increased with intravascular volume administration as did the pressure gradient for venous return (Pmsf-Pcv) (Table 3). The pressure gradient Pcc-Pmsf did not change significantly with intravascular volume administration. The slope of the ventricular output curve declined (p=0.046) reflecting the decrease in Ra, while the slope of the venous return curve and its calculated Rv did not change significantly.
We investigated a possible relation between Rs and Ra, because Rs and Ra significantly changed whereas Rv did not change with intravascular fluid administration. The results of individual data are indicated in Figure 3. The relation between Ra and Rs (Ra=0.52 (95%CI 0.44–0.62) · Rs–0.55 (95%CI −2.11 +1.02), Pearson correlation 0.945) appeared highly significant.
Figure 3.
Relationship between arterial vascular resistance (Ra) and total systemic vascular resistance (Rs). Ra is calculated as (mean arterial blood pressure - critical closing pressure)/cardiac output. Rs is calculated as (mean arterial blood pressure – central venous pressure)/cardiac output. The filled squares represent measurements at baseline, the open squares represent measurements after intravascular volume administration.
Discussion
This study shows that both Pmsf and Pcc can be determined at the bedside in intensive care patients with intact dynamic circulation. The pressure gap of 26.8±10.7 mmHg between Pcc and Pmsf indicates that a waterfall phenomenon is likely to be present. These data are consistent with the findings of several animal studies14,15 as well as those reported in humans.6–8 However, the human studies were performed in patients during ventricular fibrillation and total circulatory arrest. The duration of circulatory arrest in humans ranged from 7.5 seconds 7 to 30 seconds.8 Schipke et al.6 reported a mean Pcc of 24.2±5.3 mmHg during cardiac arrest after 13±2 seconds. Kottenberg-Assenmacher et al.8 found values of Pcc of 26.6 and 23.9 mmHg after 15 and 30 seconds of cardiac arrest. However, using a predictive model of heart beating data, i.e., on the aortic pressure decay, these authors found a significantly higher value (53±15.6 mmHg). The Pcc value of 45.5±11.1 mmHg in our study is in the range Kottenberg-Aschenmacher et al.8 found on heart beating data, but is substantially higher than values found during cardiac arrest. The discrepancy between heart beating and cardiac arrest values can be explained by a leak in the waterfall. As long as the volume supply exceeds the volume loss, the height of the waterfall will be intact. This is the case in the intact circulation, which was preserved in our study. However, when supply becomes less than the volume loss, as is the case during a cardiac arrest, the drain of arterial blood through those vascular waterfalls with lower local Pcc values will result in a reduction of measured Pcc.
Despite the difference of absolute values of Pcc for the intact circulation versus circulatory arrest, the observed pressure gap of 26.8 mmHg between Pcc and Pmsf in our patients is remarkably similar to the values Jellinek, Schipke and Kottenberg-Assenmacher et al. report.6–8 In animal stop-flow studies the pressure gap between arterial and venous pressure was already well known and was the reason for using a pump or large arteriovenous fistula to move blood from the arterial compartment to the venous compartment in order to achieve equilibrium pressure during the stop-flow period.2 The implications of a Pcc significantly greater than Pmsf are that our interpretation of vasomotor tone and vascular resistance must change.
Classically Rs is calculated as the ratio of the pressure difference between mean Pa and mean Pcv, and CO. Kottenberg-Assenmacher et al.8 already pointed out that Rs has to be partitioned into an Ra and a Rv, or rather the resistance before and after the waterfall. Our study extends their findings. We were able to calculate arterial resistance as Ra=[Pa−Pcc]/CO and venous resistance as Rv =[Pmsf−Pcv]/CO. Based on our findings we conclude that Rs is an entity that does not exist in vascular physiology and calculated Rs overestimates the sum of Ra and Rv. In Figure 4 a dotted line is plotted directly after the waterfall, because it is not known whether or not the waterfall ends directly in vascular lacunae (where Pmsf is located). Furthermore, we have no information about the presence of parallel bloodstreams to the waterfall. However, if the clinician at the bedside wants to know whether arterial tone is increased, decreased, or normal, and how it changes in response to time and treatment, then he or she needs to measure CO, Pa, and Pcc. Ra can be calculated directly from CO, Pa, and Pcc (Figure 3). Measurement of Pcc and Pmsf and calculation of Ra and Rv allows us to understand physiology and the point of action of vasoactive medication and in the future could guide the clinician in the hemodynamic treatment of critically ill patients.
Figure 4.
Schematic graph of the pressure trend from arterial blood pressure (Pa) to critical closing pressure (Pcc), mean systemic filling pressure (Pmsf) to venous pressure (Pv). The pressure decrease between Pcc and Pmsf (the vascular waterfall) shows that total systemic vascular resistance (Rs) does not exist. Instead vascular resistance can be divided in a resistance upstream of the waterfall (arterial resistance Ra) and downstream (venous resistance Rv). The dotted line between the waterfall and Pmsf indicates that it is unknown how close to the waterfall Pmsf is located.
The response to intravascular volume administration is an increase in Pmsf, while a stable value of Pcc is expected. With the analogy of a lake filled by a waterfall, adding volume will increase the filling pressure below the waterfall, but the pressure at the edge of the waterfall would not be changed. Surprisingly, Pcc did increase after intravascular volume expansion, although less than Pmsf did. We do not have an explanation for this finding. Importantly there was an increase in both Pmsf and the pressure gradient for venous return with intravascular volume expansion, resulting in an increase in CO. Resistance to venous return did not change with fluid expansion in our study. Although we do not have a solid explanation for the decrease in Ra with intravascular volume administration, vascular stress-relaxation associated with increased flow and baroreceptors-induced decreased sympathetic tone are potential mechanisms for this phenomenon. We saw only a minor decrease in heart rate after intravascular volume administration whereas pulse pressure (systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure) increased less (24%) than stroke volume increased (30%). These findings are also consistent with baroreceptors-induced arterial vasodilation.
For the inspiratory hold method to define vascular state, several assumptions are made. First a steady-state in which venous return equals CO must be created. Figure 1 demonstrates that during an inspiratory hold a plateau in Pcv, Pa and CO is reached during the last seconds of the inspiratory pause. Second, measurements must be done before autonomic reflexes occur. We did not observe any change in heart rate, Pcv or Pa during the last seconds of the inspiratory hold. This might have been caused by the use of propofol and sufentanil, which can depress baroreceptor reflexes.16–18 Third, a linear relationship between CO and Pcv and between CO and Pa is needed to be able to extrapolate to the point of zero flow. The presence of such linear relations was, indeed, shown by Guyton 1, in several animal studies 19–22 and in our study in humans.3
Before concluding that there is a waterfall phenomenon, other possible explanations for the pressure gap between Pcc and Pmsf need to be addressed. An underestimation of Pmsf by our method is unlikely. On the contrary, the positive intrathoracic pressure in theory can increase effective circulatory volume by squeezing blood from the liver and the pulmonary vessels.23 An overestimation or underestimation of Pcc could be possible, because of the extrapolation of the CO-Pa curve beyond the data range (Figure 2). However for the inspiratory holds of 35 cmH2O in some patients CO reached very low values during a few seconds, almost abolishing the need for extrapolation. However, none of these potential arguments explain the large pressure gap between Pcc and Pmsf of 26.8 mmHg.
Where are waterfalls located and what is their function? The exact location of the vascular waterfall is not known, but generally an arteriolar or precapillary locus is assumed.10,24 In all animal studies critical closing pressures higher than venous pressures were found.25,26 From stop-flow experiments in animals, such local Pcc to venous pressure gaps were reported for brain,27,28 kidneys29 and coronaries.8 Importantly, the organ-specific Pcc values are often different reflecting organ-specific vascular flow control.
Why do are there waterfalls, and what is their purpose? First, since different organs may have different Pcc values, with the heart and the brain probably having lower Pcc values than muscle, kidney and gut, they allow for vital organ perfusion at lower Pa values. Furthermore vital organ perfusion is maintained transiently during stop-flow conditions. After cardiac arrest arterial blood pressure will be reduced to Pcc. Because Pcv slowly increases to the level of Pmsf, a pressure gradient (between Pcc and Pmsf) will be preserved for some time. Thus at least temporarily some flow and perfusion pressure is maintained to the brain and heart. Indeed during ventricular fibrillation in pigs, flow in the left carotid artery was preserved at a low level for minutes.30 Second, and perhaps more importantly, short-lasting changes in Pcv induced by intrathoracic pressure changes (by inspiration, coughing or Valsalva maneuvers) will only affect the downstream portion of the waterfall, thereby maintaining the stability of circulatory flow from the arteries into the organs. Only after some time, will an increase in Pcv decrease venous return and thus CO.24
Although the size of the study group was small, the gap between Pmsf and Pcc was large in every patient during baseline conditions and after intravascular volume expansion. Because only cardiac surgery patients with relative intact ventricular function were included, these conclusions may not carry the same magnitude of interrelation in patients with impaired ventricular function. The small size of the study population did not allow conclusion on subgroups as responders and nonresponders to the intravascular fluid administration as all our subjects increased CO in response to intravascular volume administration.
Conclusions
With our bedside measurement of Pcc and Pmsf we showed that there is a systemic vascular waterfall in cardiac surgery patients and the practitioner is now able to estimate Ra and Rv separately. The vascular waterfall is not affected by intravascular fluid administration. Furthermore, because of this vascular waterfall in excess of 25 mmHg estimations of vasomotor tone using calculations of systemic vascular resistance will both overestimate actual vasomotor tone and may not accurately represent changes in vasomotor tone.
Acknowledgments
Funding: Supported solely by institutional grants; this work was supported, in part by NIH grant HL67181
Footnotes
Reprints will not be available from the authors.
DISCLOSURES:
Name: Jacinta J. Maas, M.D.
Contribution: Study design, conduct of study, data analysis and manuscript preparation
Name: Rob B. de Wilde, Ph.D.
Contribution: Conduct of study and manuscript preparation
Name: Leon P. Aarts, M.D., Ph.D.
Contribution: Study design and manuscript preparation
Name: Michael R. Pinsky, M.D., Dr hc, FCCM
Contribution: Data analysis and manuscript preparation
Name: Jos R. Jansen, Ph.D.
Contribution: Study design, conduct of study, data analysis and manuscript preparation
This manuscript was handled by: Steven L. Shafer, MD
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Contributor Information
Jacinta J. Maas, Department of Intensive Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
Rob B. de Wilde, Department of Intensive Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
Leon P. Aarts, Department of Anesthesiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
Michael R. Pinsky, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Jos R. Jansen, Department of Intensive Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
References
- 1.Guyton AC. Determination of cardiac output by equating venous return curves with cardiac response curves. Physiol Rev. 1955;35:123–9. doi: 10.1152/physrev.1955.35.1.123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Guyton AC, Polizo D, Armstrong GG. Mean circulatory filling pressure measured immediately after cessation of heart pumping. Am J Physiol. 1954;179:261–7. doi: 10.1152/ajplegacy.1954.179.2.261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Maas JJ, Geerts BF, van den Berg PC, Pinsky MR, Jansen JR. Assessment of venous return curve and mean systemic filling pressure in postoperative cardiac surgery patients. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:912–8. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181961481. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Rothe CF. Mean circulatory filling pressure: its meaning and measurement. J Appl Physiol. 1993;74:499–509. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1993.74.2.499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Peters J, Mack GW, Lister G. The importance of the peripheral circulation in critical illnesses. Intensive Care Med. 2001;27:1446–58. doi: 10.1007/s001340101034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Schipke JD, Heusch G, Sanii AP, Gams E, Winter J. Static filling pressure in patients during induced ventricular fibrillation. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2003;285:H2510–H2515. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00604.2003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Jellinek H, Krenn H, Oczenski W, Veit F, Schwarz S, Fitzgerald RD. Influence of positive airway pressure on the pressure gradient for venous return in humans. J Appl Physiol. 2000;88:926–32. doi: 10.1152/jappl.2000.88.3.926. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Kottenberg-Assenmacher E, Aleksic I, Eckholt M, Lehmann N, Peters J. Critical closing pressure as the arterial downstream pressure with the heart beating and during circulatory arrest. Anesthesiology. 2009;110:370–9. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181942c99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Sylvester JT, Gilbert RD, Traystman RJ, Permutt S. Effects of hypoxia on the closing pressure of the canine systemic arterial circulation. Circ Res. 1981;49:980–7. doi: 10.1161/01.res.49.4.980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Permutt S, Riley RL. Hemodynamics of collapsible vessels with tone: the vascular waterfall. J Appl Physiol. 1963;18:924–32. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1963.18.5.924. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Wesseling KH, Jansen JR, Settels JJ, Schreuder JJ. Computation of aortic flow from pressure in humans using a nonlinear, three-element model. J Appl Physiol. 1993;74:2566–73. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1993.74.5.2566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Jansen JR, Schreuder JJ, Mulier JP, Smith NT, Settels JJ, Wesseling KH. A comparison of cardiac output derived from the arterial pressure wave against thermodilution in cardiac surgery patients. Br J Anaesth. 2001;87:212–22. doi: 10.1093/bja/87.2.212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.de Wilde RB, Schreuder JJ, van den Berg PC, Jansen JR. An evaluation of cardiac output by five arterial pulse contour techniques during cardiac surgery. Anaesthesia. 2007;62:760–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2007.05135.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Samar RE, Coleman TG. Mean circulatory pressure and vascular compliances in the spontaneously hypertensive rat. Am J Physiol. 1979;237:H584–H589. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.1979.237.5.H584. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Yamamoto J, Trippodo NC, Ishise S, Frohlich ED. Total vascular pressure-volume relationship in the conscious rat. Am J Physiol. 1980;238:H823–H828. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.1980.238.6.H823. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Ebert TJ. Sympathetic and hemodynamic effects of moderate and deep sedation with propofol in humans. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:20–4. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200507000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Sato M, Tanaka M, Umehara S, Nishikawa T. Baroreflex control of heart rate during and after propofol infusion in humans. Br J Anaesth. 2005;94:577–81. doi: 10.1093/bja/aei092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Lennander O, Henriksson BA, Martner J, Biber B. Effects of fentanyl, nitrous oxide, or both, on baroreceptor reflex regulation in the cat. Br J Anaesth. 1996;77:399–403. doi: 10.1093/bja/77.3.399. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Pinsky MR. Instantaneous venous return curves in an intact canine preparation. J Appl Physiol. 1984;56:765–71. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1984.56.3.765. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Versprille A, Jansen JR. Mean systemic filling pressure as a characteristic pressure for venous return. Pflugers Arch. 1985;405:226–33. doi: 10.1007/BF00582565. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Den Hartog EA, Versprille A, Jansen JR. Systemic filling pressure in intact circulation determined on basis of aortic vs. central venous pressure relationships. Am J Physiol. 1994;267:H2255–H2258. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.1994.267.6.H2255. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Uemura K, Sugimachi M, Kawada T, Kamiya A, Jin Y, Kashihara K, Sunagawa K. A novel framework of circulatory equilibrium. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2004;286:H2376–H2385. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00654.2003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.van den Berg PC, Jansen JR, Pinsky MR. Effect of positive pressure on venous return in volume-loaded cardiac surgical patients. J Appl Physiol. 2002;92:1223–31. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00487.2001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Magder S. Starling resistor versus compliance. Which explains the zero-flow pressure of a dynamic arterial pressure-flow relation? Circ Res. 1990;67:209–20. doi: 10.1161/01.res.67.1.209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Bellamy RF. Diastolic coronary artery pressure-flow relations in the dog. Circ Res. 1978;43:92–101. doi: 10.1161/01.res.43.1.92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Burton AC. On the physical equilibrium of small blood vessels. Am J Physiol. 1951;164:319–29. doi: 10.1152/ajplegacy.1951.164.2.319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Aaslid R, Lash SR, Bardy GH, Gild WH, Newell DW. Dynamic pressure--flow velocity relationships in the human cerebral circulation. Stroke. 2003;34:1645–9. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000077927.63758.B6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Weyland A, Buhre W, Grund S, Ludwig H, Kazmaier S, Weyland W, Sonntag H. Cerebrovascular tone rather than intracranial pressure determines the effective downstream pressure of the cerebral circulation in the absence of intracranial hypertension. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2000;12:210–6. doi: 10.1097/00008506-200007000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Ehrlich W, Baer RW, Paidipaty BB, Randazzo R. Instantaneous renal arterial pressure-flow relations in anesthetized dogs. Am J Physiol. 1984;246:H702–H9. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.1984.246.5.H702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Steen S, Liao Q, Pierre L, Paskevicius A, Sjoberg T. The critical importance of minimal delay between chest compressions and subsequent defibrillation: a haemodynamic explanation. Resuscitation. 2003;58:249–58. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(03)00265-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]