Passive leg raising creates a reversible increase in venous return allowing for the prediction of fluid responsiveness. However, the amount of venous return may vary in various clinical settings potentially affecting the diagnostic performance of passive leg raising. Therefore we performed a systematic meta-analysis determining the diagnostic performance of passive leg raising in different clinical settings with exploration of patient characteristics, measurement techniques, and outcome variables.
PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and citation tracking of relevant articles.
Clinical trials were selected when passive leg raising was performed in combination with a fluid challenge as gold standard to define fluid responders and non-responders.
Trials were included if data were reported allowing the extraction of sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.
Twenty-three studies with a total of 1,013 patients and 1,034 fluid challenges were included. The analysis demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 86% (95% CI, 79–92), pooled specificity of 92% (95% CI, 88–96), and a summary area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92–0.98). Mode of ventilation, type of fluid used, passive leg raising starting position, and measurement technique did not affect the diagnostic performance of passive leg raising. The use of changes in pulse pressure on passive leg raising showed a lower diagnostic performance when compared with passive leg raising–induced changes in flow variables, such as cardiac output or its direct derivatives (sensitivity of 58% [95% CI, 44–70] and specificity of 83% [95% CI, 68–92] vs sensitivity of 85% [95% CI, 78–90] and specificity of 92% [95% CI, 87–94], respectively; p < 0.001).
Passive leg raising retains a high diagnostic performance in various clinical settings and patient groups. The predictive value of a change in pulse pressure on passive leg raising is inferior to a passive leg raising–induced change in a flow variable.
1Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
2Department of Cardiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
3Department of Anesthesiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
4Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
5Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Laboratory of Experimental Intensive Care and Anesthesiology (LEICA), Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
6Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
*See also p. 1020.
Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s website (http://journals.lww.com/ccmjournal).
Dr. Geerts’ institution received funding from Edwards Lifesciences LLC. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.
For information regarding this article, E-mail: email@example.com