Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
To identify normovolemia in humans: The stroke volume response to passive leg raising vs. head‐down tilt
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
To identify normovolemia in humans: The stroke volume response to passive leg raising vs. head‐down tilt
Do you wish to request the book?
To identify normovolemia in humans: The stroke volume response to passive leg raising vs. head‐down tilt
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
To identify normovolemia in humans: The stroke volume response to passive leg raising vs. head‐down tilt
2022
Overview
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. Volume responsiveness can be evaluated by tilting manoeuvres 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). Stroke volume has a maximal value for rest in supine men, while PLR restores SV as central blood volume is reduced in a semi‐recumbent position and the procedure thereby makes healthy volunteers seem fluid responsive.
