Wednesday, August 20, 2025

The "Bridge to Nowhere": Navigating Demands for Non-Beneficial ECMO in Critical Care Medicine

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) represents one of the most resource-intensive interventions in critical care, often positioned as a "bridge" to recovery, transplantation, or decision-making. However, the metaphorical bridge sometimes leads to nowhere—prolonging suffering without meaningful benefit. This review examines the ethical, clinical, and communication challenges surrounding demands for non-beneficial ECMO, providing evidence-based guidance for critical care practitioners. We explore the tension between patient autonomy and medical stewardship, offer practical frameworks for family discussions, and present clinical pearls for navigating these complex scenarios. The key insight is that this challenge is fundamentally about communication and shared decision-making rather than purely medical determination.

Keywords: ECMO, futility, ethics, critical care, communication, shared decision-making

Introduction

The advent of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has revolutionized critical care, offering life-saving support for patients with severe cardiac and respiratory failure. Originally developed in the 1970s, ECMO has evolved from an experimental procedure to a standard-of-care intervention for carefully selected patients. However, this technological advancement has created a new ethical dilemma: the potential for ECMO to become a "bridge to nowhere"—a sophisticated form of life support that prolongs dying rather than facilitating recovery.

The metaphor of a bridge is particularly apt in ECMO care. Ideally, ECMO serves as a bridge to recovery, allowing time for the underlying pathology to resolve while providing complete cardiopulmonary support. Alternatively, it may serve as a bridge to transplantation or to other definitive therapies. However, in some cases, ECMO becomes an end in itself—a destination rather than a passage—leading to prolonged ICU stays, significant resource utilization, and potential suffering without meaningful benefit.

This review addresses one of the most challenging scenarios in contemporary critical care: how to respond when families demand ECMO for patients unlikely to benefit from this intervention. We examine this issue through multiple lenses—clinical, ethical, and communicative—while providing practical guidance for clinicians facing these difficult situations.

The Clinical Landscape of ECMO

ECMO Fundamentals and Indications

ECMO provides temporary mechanical circulatory and respiratory support by removing blood from the patient's circulation, oxygenating it externally, removing carbon dioxide, and returning it to the circulation. Two primary configurations exist: veno-venous (VV) ECMO for isolated respiratory failure, and veno-arterial (VA) ECMO for combined cardiac and respiratory failure or isolated cardiac failure.

Established indications for ECMO include:

Severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio <100 mmHg despite optimal mechanical ventilation
Cardiogenic shock unresponsive to conventional therapy
Bridge to cardiac transplantation
Primary graft dysfunction following lung transplantation
Severe pneumonia with refractory hypoxemia
Massive pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic compromise

Outcomes and Survival Data

Recent registry data from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) demonstrate survival rates of approximately 60-70% for respiratory ECMO in adults and 40-50% for cardiac ECMO. However, these aggregate statistics mask significant heterogeneity based on patient selection, underlying pathology, timing of initiation, and institutional experience.

Several factors predict poor outcomes on ECMO:

Advanced age (>65-70 years, depending on the study)
Pre-existing significant comorbidities
Prolonged mechanical ventilation prior to ECMO (>7-10 days)
Multi-organ failure
Refractory bleeding
Irreversible underlying pathology

Resource Utilization and Costs

ECMO represents one of the most resource-intensive interventions in critical care. Daily costs typically range from $5,000-$10,000, with total episode costs often exceeding $200,000-$500,000. Beyond financial considerations, ECMO requires:

Dedicated nursing care (often 1:1 or 2:1 ratios)
Specialized perfusionist support
Intensive physician oversight
Significant blood product utilization
Extended ICU bed occupancy

These resource demands create opportunity costs—other patients may be denied access to critical care services when ECMO beds are occupied by patients unlikely to benefit.

The Ethical Framework: Autonomy versus Beneficence

Team Patient Autonomy: The Case for Liberal ECMO Use

Proponents of a more liberal approach to ECMO initiation argue from several ethical principles:

Respect for Autonomy: Patients and families have the right to make informed decisions about their care, even when those decisions may seem irrational to healthcare providers. If a family requests ECMO after being informed of the risks and low likelihood of meaningful recovery, some argue that this autonomous choice should be respected.

Prognostic Uncertainty: Medicine is inherently uncertain, and our ability to predict individual outcomes remains limited. Prognostic scores and population-based data may not apply to individual patients. Some patients defy expectations and achieve meaningful recovery despite poor predicted outcomes.

Hope and Time: ECMO can provide time—time for families to process devastating news, time for spiritual preparation, time for extended family to gather, and time for potential recovery that might not occur with more rapid progression to death.

Cultural and Religious Considerations: Some families' cultural or religious beliefs emphasize the sanctity of life and the obligation to pursue all available treatments. Denying ECMO in these contexts may violate deeply held values.

Team Stewardship: The Case for Restrictive ECMO Use

Advocates for more restrictive ECMO criteria emphasize different ethical principles:

Non-Maleficence: "First, do no harm." ECMO carries significant risks including bleeding, stroke, limb ischemia, and infection. When the likelihood of meaningful benefit is extremely low, these risks may constitute iatrogenic harm.

Justice and Resource Allocation: ECMO requires enormous resources that could benefit other patients with better prognoses. Using ECMO for patients unlikely to benefit may deny these resources to patients who could achieve meaningful recovery.

Proportionality: The intensity of intervention should be proportional to the likelihood of benefit. Extremely invasive and resource-intensive interventions may be inappropriate when the chance of meaningful recovery is negligible.

Professional Integrity: Healthcare providers have professional obligations that extend beyond simply following patient or family requests. These obligations include honest prognostication and appropriate use of medical interventions.

The Communication Challenge: Beyond Medical Facts

The Fundamental Insight

The most important insight for critical care practitioners is that conflicts over non-beneficial ECMO are rarely about medical facts alone. They typically arise from:

Inadequate communication about prognosis and goals
Misaligned expectations about ECMO capabilities
Unresolved grief and denial
Mistrust in the healthcare team
Cultural or religious factors not adequately addressed

Pre-ECMO Communication: Setting the Foundation

The foundation for navigating potential ECMO conflicts must be established before the crisis moment. Key elements include:

Early Prognostic Disclosure: Regular updates about the patient's condition, trajectory, and prognosis should begin early in the ICU course. Avoid the common pattern of daily reassurance followed by sudden devastating news.

ECMO Education: When ECMO becomes a consideration, provide clear, jargon-free explanations of:

What ECMO does and doesn't do
Success rates specific to the patient's condition
Typical timeline and decision points
Quality of life considerations for survivors

Goal Clarification: Use structured approaches like "Ask-Tell-Ask" to understand family priorities:

"What is your understanding of [patient's] condition right now?"
[Provide medical update]
"What questions do you have? What matters most to you and [patient]?"

The Family Meeting: A Structured Approach

When families request ECMO for patients unlikely to benefit, a structured family meeting approach is essential:

Phase 1: Setting and Agenda

Choose an appropriate, private setting
Ensure key family members and healthcare team members are present
Begin with agenda-setting: "We're here to talk about [patient's] condition and next steps in care"

Phase 2: Assessment of Understanding

"What is your understanding of how [patient] is doing right now?"
Listen carefully to identify knowledge gaps and emotional state
Acknowledge emotions: "I can see how difficult this is for your family"

Phase 3: Information Sharing

Provide clear, honest prognostic information
Use plain language and avoid medical jargon
Be specific about timelines and probabilities when possible
Address ECMO directly: "Some families ask about ECMO in situations like this..."

Phase 4: Exploring Values and Goals

"What would [patient] want if they could speak for themselves?"
"What does a meaningful recovery look like to your family?"
"How do you think [patient] would feel about being on life support for weeks or months?"

Phase 5: Recommendation and Planning

Provide a clear recommendation based on medical judgment
If declining ECMO, explain the reasoning clearly
Offer alternative approaches focused on comfort and dignity
Address the family's emotional needs

Common Communication Pitfalls

The False Binary: Avoid presenting choices as "ECMO or death." Instead, frame as "ECMO with its associated risks and uncertain benefits" versus "focusing on comfort and dignity."

Premature Reassurance: Resist the urge to immediately comfort families who are expressing distress. Allow space for emotions before problem-solving.

Technical Overwhelm: Avoid excessive medical details that obscure the core message about prognosis and recommendations.

Ultimatums: Avoid absolute statements like "There's nothing more we can do." Instead, focus on shifting goals: "We want to do everything that can help [patient], and that means focusing on comfort."

Clinical Pearls and Practice Points

Pearl 1: The 48-72 Hour Rule

When families request time to "think about it," offer a specific timeframe (typically 48-72 hours) for decision-making. This prevents indefinite delays while respecting the need for processing.

Pearl 2: The Trial Period Approach

When ECMO is initiated despite marginal candidacy, establish clear success criteria and timelines upfront. For example: "We'll try ECMO for 7-10 days and reassess. If we don't see significant improvement in lung function by then, we'll need to discuss whether continuing makes sense."

Pearl 3: The Proxy Decision-Maker Assessment

Evaluate whether the person making the ECMO request truly understands the patient's values and wishes. Sometimes, the most vocal family member is not the best proxy for the patient's preferences.

Pearl 4: The Second Opinion Strategy

Offer consultation with another intensivist or the institutional ethics committee. This can provide valuable perspective and may help families accept difficult recommendations.

Pearl 5: The Graduated Response

Rather than immediately refusing ECMO, consider a graduated approach:

Optimize conventional therapy
Consider less invasive bridging measures
Offer a time-limited trial if marginally appropriate
Maintain ongoing dialogue about goals

Oysters: Hidden Complexities and Nuanced Considerations

Oyster 1: The Rescue Fantasy

Some families (and clinicians) harbor unconscious "rescue fantasies"—the belief that love, faith, or determination can overcome medical reality. Recognizing and gently addressing these fantasies is crucial for realistic decision-making.

Oyster 2: The Guilt Factor

Family dynamics often involve complex guilt patterns. The family member who "didn't visit enough" may be the most vocal advocate for aggressive care. Understanding these dynamics can inform communication strategies.

Oyster 3: The Provider Burnout Risk

Caring for patients on non-beneficial ECMO creates significant moral distress for healthcare teams. Institutions must have support systems and clear policies to protect provider well-being.

Oyster 4: The Legal Landscape

Legal frameworks vary significantly by jurisdiction. Some regions have "futility laws" that allow providers to withdraw treatment deemed non-beneficial, while others require court intervention. Know your local legal environment.

Oyster 5: The Quality of Survival Question

Even among ECMO survivors, quality of life outcomes vary dramatically. Consider not just survival, but functional outcomes, cognitive status, and patient-defined quality of life in prognostic discussions.

Clinical Hacks: Practical Strategies for Difficult Situations

Hack 1: The "What If" Conversation

When families seem unrealistic about prognosis, try: "What if the doctors caring for you were in this situation? What would you want them to be honest about?" This can open discussions about honest prognostication.

Hack 2: The Values-Based Pivot

When families insist on "everything," pivot to values: "It sounds like fighting for [patient] is really important to you. Let's talk about what fighting for someone looks like when they're this sick."

Hack 3: The Time-Limited Trial Framework

Structure ECMO decisions as explicit trials: "We'll try this for X days, looking for Y improvements. If we don't see those improvements, we'll need to refocus on comfort." This provides hope while setting realistic boundaries.

Hack 4: The Expert Consultant Approach

Sometimes families need to hear the same message from multiple sources. Consider infectious disease, pulmonology, or cardiology consultants to reinforce prognostic assessments.

Hack 5: The Narrative Medicine Technique

Ask families to tell you about the patient as a person: "Tell me about [patient] when they were healthy. What brought them joy?" This can help align care with the patient's values and personality.

Evidence-Based Decision Making: When to Say No

Absolute Contraindications

Certain scenarios make ECMO inappropriate regardless of family wishes:

Irreversible underlying condition (e.g., end-stage malignancy)
Severe, irreversible neurologic injury
Inability to achieve adequate anticoagulation
Absolute contraindication to systemic anticoagulation

Relative Contraindications Requiring Careful Consideration

Advanced age (>70-75 years)
Significant pre-existing comorbidities
Prolonged conventional support prior to ECMO consideration
Multi-organ failure
Poor functional status prior to acute illness

The Prognostic Assessment Framework

Develop a systematic approach to prognostic assessment:

Disease-Specific Factors: Consider the natural history and reversibility of the underlying condition
Patient-Specific Factors: Age, comorbidities, baseline functional status
Illness-Specific Factors: Duration of current illness, response to conventional therapy, organ dysfunction scores
Technical Factors: Surgical candidacy, bleeding risk, vascular access

Institutional Frameworks and Policy Development

The Ethics Committee Role

Institutional ethics committees should provide:

Policy development for ECMO futility determinations
Real-time consultation for difficult cases
Educational support for staff
Mediation services for family conflicts

The Multidisciplinary Team Approach

Optimal ECMO decisions require input from:

Critical care physicians
ECMO specialists
Nursing staff
Social workers
Chaplains or spiritual care providers
Ethics consultants
Palliative care specialists

Documentation Standards

Clear documentation should include:

Prognostic assessment with specific data points
Goals of care discussions
Family understanding and values
Decision-making rationale
Plan for reassessment

Communication Scripts and Practical Examples

Script 1: Introducing Prognostic Uncertainty

"We've been caring for [patient] for several days now, and I want to share with you what we're seeing. While we always hope for the best, [patient's] condition is very serious. Even with ECMO, which is our most advanced form of life support, the chances of meaningful recovery are quite low—probably less than 10%. I want to make sure you understand both what ECMO can and cannot do."

Script 2: Addressing ECMO Requests

"I understand you've heard about ECMO and are wondering if it might help [patient]. Let me explain what ECMO is and help you think through whether it fits with what [patient] would want. ECMO is essentially an artificial heart and lung machine..."

Script 3: Discussing Futility

"As much as we all want to help [patient] get better, there comes a point where medical treatments stop being helpful and start causing more suffering. Based on everything we know about [patient's] condition, we don't believe ECMO would help them recover. Instead, we think it would only prolong their dying process."

Script 4: Transitioning to Comfort Care

"Since aggressive treatments like ECMO aren't going to help [patient] recover, we want to focus on making sure they're comfortable and that you have time to be together as a family. This doesn't mean we're giving up—it means we're changing our focus to what's most important now."

The Shared Decision-Making Model

Moving Beyond Autonomy vs. Paternalism

Traditional bioethics often frames these conflicts as autonomy (family choice) versus paternalism (physician authority). However, the shared decision-making model offers a more nuanced approach:

Information Sharing: Physicians provide honest, complete prognostic information
Values Exploration: Families share the patient's values, preferences, and goals
Deliberation: Together, the team explores how medical facts align with patient values
Decision: A collaborative decision that respects both medical judgment and patient values

The Role of Hope

Hope is not the enemy of good medical decision-making. Rather than trying to eliminate hope, help families redirect it:

From hope for cure to hope for comfort
From hope for unlimited time to hope for meaningful time
From hope for technological salvation to hope for peaceful closure

Special Populations and Considerations

Pediatric Considerations

Pediatric ECMO decisions involve additional complexities:

Different outcome expectations
Parental rights and responsibilities
Longer potential life-years lost
Different risk-benefit calculations

Cultural Competency

Some cultural backgrounds emphasize:

Family decision-making rather than individual autonomy
Spiritual or religious frameworks for end-of-life decisions
Different concepts of meaningful life and death
Varying comfort levels with prognostic discussions

The Role of Palliative Care

Early palliative care consultation can:

Improve symptom management
Facilitate goals-of-care discussions
Provide family support
Assist with transition planning

Institutional Quality Improvement

Metrics for Assessment

Institutions should track:

ECMO initiation rates by diagnosis and predicted survival
Family satisfaction with communication
Staff moral distress scores
Resource utilization patterns
Outcomes stratified by selection criteria

Educational Initiatives

Ongoing education should address:

Prognostic assessment skills
Communication techniques
Ethical frameworks
Cultural competency
Stress management for providers

Case Studies and Applications

Case 1: The Marginal Candidate

A 72-year-old woman with severe ARDS secondary to pneumonia, previously independent, develops refractory hypoxemia after 5 days of mechanical ventilation. Family requests ECMO. How do you approach this situation?

Analysis: This case illustrates the gray zone where reasonable people might disagree. Age is concerning but not prohibitive. Duration of mechanical ventilation is borderline. The key is honest communication about uncertain outcomes and careful goal-setting.

Case 2: The Futile Request

A 45-year-old man with metastatic lung cancer develops cardiogenic shock. Despite clear progression of malignancy, family demands VA ECMO, stating "he's a fighter." How do you respond?

Analysis: This case represents clearer futility given the irreversible underlying condition. The focus should be on compassionate communication about shifting goals rather than attempting to honor the ECMO request.

Case 3: The Unclear Prognosis

A 30-year-old previously healthy woman develops myocarditis with severe biventricular failure. She meets technical criteria for ECMO, but early indicators suggest possible irreversible cardiac damage. Family is requesting "everything possible." How do you proceed?

Analysis: This case highlights the importance of time-limited trials with clear endpoints and the value of involving additional specialists (cardiology, cardiac surgery) in prognostic assessment.

Future Directions and Research Needs

Prognostic Tools Development

Research priorities include:

Better predictive models for ECMO outcomes
Real-time assessment tools for ongoing candidacy
Biomarkers for recovery potential
Machine learning approaches to outcome prediction

Communication Research

Areas needing investigation:

Optimal timing for prognostic discussions
Cultural adaptation of communication strategies
Decision aid development
Provider training in difficult conversations

Ethical Framework Evolution

Emerging considerations:

Resource allocation during pandemics
International variation in ethical approaches
Patient-reported outcome measures
Long-term survivor perspectives

Practical Recommendations

For Individual Practitioners

Develop Communication Skills: Invest in formal training in difficult conversations and breaking bad news
Know Your Institution's Resources: Understand available ethics, palliative care, and spiritual care support
Practice Self-Care: Recognize and address moral distress through peer support and professional resources
Stay Current: Keep up with evolving ECMO outcomes data and prognostic tools

For Institutions

Develop Clear Policies: Create institutional guidelines for ECMO candidate selection and futility determinations
Provide Communication Training: Offer regular education on difficult conversations and family meetings
Support Multidisciplinary Teams: Ensure adequate staffing and resources for complex cases
Monitor Outcomes: Track both medical outcomes and family satisfaction measures

For Healthcare Systems

Resource Planning: Develop regional ECMO capacity and referral networks
Quality Measures: Implement system-wide metrics for appropriate ECMO utilization
Research Investment: Support studies on ECMO outcomes and communication strategies
Policy Development: Engage in healthcare policy discussions about resource allocation and futility

Conclusion

The challenge of non-beneficial ECMO demands represents one of the most complex issues in contemporary critical care medicine. It sits at the intersection of advancing technology, scarce resources, cultural diversity, and human grief. Rather than viewing this as a binary choice between autonomy and medical paternalism, we must embrace a more nuanced approach centered on excellent communication, shared decision-making, and compassionate care.

The "bridge to nowhere" metaphor reminds us that technology should serve human flourishing, not merely technical possibility. ECMO, like all medical interventions, must be employed thoughtfully, with clear goals, realistic expectations, and ongoing assessment of benefit versus burden.

For critical care practitioners, success in these challenging scenarios requires:

Clinical expertise in ECMO candidacy and outcomes
Communication skills for difficult conversations
Ethical frameworks for complex decisions
Institutional support for challenging cases
Personal resilience and professional support

Ultimately, the goal is not to eliminate all conflicts over ECMO utilization, but to ensure that these conflicts arise from genuine disagreement about values and goals rather than miscommunication, misunderstanding, or inadequate information sharing. When we achieve this level of communication excellence, most families will make decisions aligned with their loved one's best interests, even when those decisions involve accepting the limitations of medical technology.

The bridge metaphor works both ways: just as we must recognize when ECMO becomes a bridge to nowhere, we must also acknowledge when it serves as a bridge to meaningful conversations, closure, and peace for families facing the most difficult moment of their lives.

References

Combes A, Hajage D, Capellier G, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(21):1965-1975.
Goligher EC, Tomlinson G, Hajage D, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and posterior probability of mortality benefit in a post hoc Bayesian analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320(21):2251-2259.
Truog RD, Mitchell C, Daley GQ. The toughest triage - allocating ventilators in a pandemic. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(21):1973-1975.
Kon AA, Shepard EK, Sederstrom NO, et al. Defining futile and potentially inappropriate interventions: a policy statement from the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(9):1769-1774.
Curtis JR, White DB. Practical guidance for evidence-based ICU family conferences. Chest. 2008;134(4):835-843.
Barbaro RP, Paden ML, Guner YS, et al. Pediatric extracorporeal life support organization registry international report 2016. ASAIO J. 2017;63(4):456-463.
Thiagarajan RR, Barbaro RP, Rycus PT, et al. Extracorporeal life support organization registry international report 2016. ASAIO J. 2017;63(1):60-67.
White DB, Curtis JR, Lo B, Luce JM. Decisions to limit life-sustaining treatment for critically ill patients who lack both decision-making capacity and surrogate decision-makers. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(8):2053-2059.
Bosslet GT, Pope TM, Rubenfeld GD, et al. An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM policy statement: responding to requests for potentially inappropriate treatments in intensive care units. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;191(11):1318-1330.
Henrich NJ, Dodek P, Heyland D, et al. Qualitative analysis of an intensive care unit family satisfaction survey. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(5):1000-1005.
Turnbull AE, Hartog CS. Goal-concordant care in the ICU: a conceptual framework for future research. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(12):1847-1849.
Abrams D, Garan AR, Abdelbary A, et al. Position paper for the organization of ECMO programs for cardiac failure in adults. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(6):717-729.
MacLaren G, Combes A, Bartlett RH. Contemporary extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for adult respiratory failure: life support in the new era. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38(2):210-220.
Schmidt M, Burrell A, Roberts L, et al. Predicting survival after ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock: the survival after veno-arterial-ECMO (SAVE)-score. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(33):2246-2256.
Peek GJ, Mugford M, Tiruvoipati R, et al. Efficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374(9698):1351-1363.

Author Disclosure Statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article. No external funding was received for this work.

Word Count: Approximately 3,200 words

The Sepsis Resuscitation Endgame: When to Stop Fluids?

The Sepsis Resuscitation Endgame: When to Stop Fluids? A Critical Care Perspective on Fluid Tolerance in Septic Shock

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: The optimal fluid management strategy in septic shock remains one of the most contentious topics in critical care medicine. While early aggressive fluid resuscitation is a cornerstone of sepsis management, the decision of when to transition from fluid loading to vasopressor support represents a critical inflection point that significantly impacts patient outcomes.

Objective: To provide a comprehensive review of current evidence regarding fluid resuscitation endpoints in septic shock, examining the concepts of fluid responsiveness versus fluid tolerance, and offering practical guidance for the modern intensivist.

Methods: We reviewed current literature, guidelines, and emerging evidence regarding fluid management in septic shock, with particular focus on hemodynamic monitoring techniques and clinical decision-making frameworks.

Conclusions: The traditional "30 mL/kg" fluid bolus represents a starting point rather than a therapeutic endpoint. Contemporary sepsis management requires individualized assessment of fluid responsiveness and tolerance, with early consideration of vasopressor therapy when fluid accumulation risks outweigh hemodynamic benefits.

Keywords: septic shock, fluid resuscitation, hemodynamic monitoring, fluid responsiveness, vasopressors

Introduction

The management of septic shock has evolved considerably since the landmark Rivers et al. early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) trial in 2001¹. However, despite decades of research and multiple large randomized controlled trials, the optimal approach to fluid resuscitation remains a source of ongoing debate and clinical uncertainty. The 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend an initial fluid bolus of 30 mL/kg within the first three hours², yet this recommendation represents only the beginning of a complex clinical decision-making process that extends far beyond this initial intervention.

The fundamental challenge lies in navigating the narrow therapeutic window between inadequate perfusion and iatrogenic fluid overload. While hypovolemia in septic shock leads to organ hypoperfusion and dysfunction, excessive fluid administration can result in pulmonary edema, increased intra-abdominal pressure, prolonged mechanical ventilation, and ultimately, increased mortality³⁻⁵. This review examines the critical decision point of when to transition from fluid loading to alternative hemodynamic support strategies, exploring the concepts of fluid responsiveness versus fluid tolerance in the modern era of precision medicine.

The Pathophysiology of Fluid Distribution in Sepsis

Microcirculatory Dysfunction and Capillary Leak

Septic shock fundamentally alters the normal distribution of intravascular volume through several interconnected mechanisms. The inflammatory cascade triggered by bacterial endotoxins leads to widespread endothelial dysfunction, characterized by increased capillary permeability and loss of glycocalyx integrity⁶. This "capillary leak syndrome" results in rapid extravasation of administered fluids from the intravascular to the interstitial compartment, often within minutes of administration.

The concept of the "revised Starling equation" has revolutionized our understanding of transcapillary fluid movement. Unlike the traditional model that emphasized oncotic pressure gradients, the revised equation highlights the critical role of the endothelial surface layer (glycocalyx) in maintaining intravascular volume⁷. In sepsis, degradation of this layer essentially creates a "leaky bucket" phenomenon, where continued fluid administration may provide only transient hemodynamic improvement while contributing to progressive tissue edema.

Ventricular Dysfunction and Fluid Tolerance

Sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy affects approximately 40-50% of patients with septic shock⁸. This myocardial dysfunction, characterized by both systolic and diastolic impairment, fundamentally alters the heart's ability to accommodate increased preload. The Frank-Starling mechanism, which normally allows increased venous return to enhance cardiac output, becomes blunted or even counterproductive when ventricular function is compromised.

Clinical Pearl: In patients with sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy, aggressive fluid loading may paradoxically decrease cardiac output by shifting the ventricle to the flat portion of the Frank-Starling curve, where further preload increases result in elevated filling pressures without proportional increases in stroke volume.

Fluid Responsiveness vs. Fluid Tolerance: A Paradigm Shift

Defining Fluid Responsiveness

Fluid responsiveness traditionally refers to the ability of a fluid bolus to increase stroke volume (or cardiac output) by ≥10-15%⁹. This concept has driven the development of numerous dynamic and static indices aimed at predicting which patients will benefit from additional fluid administration.

Static Indices:

Central venous pressure (CVP) < 8-12 mmHg
Pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP) < 12-15 mmHg
Inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter and collapsibility

Dynamic Indices:

Stroke volume variation (SVV) > 13%
Pulse pressure variation (PPV) > 13%
Passive leg raise test (PLR) with ≥10% increase in cardiac output

The Fluid Tolerance Concept

The paradigm shift from fluid responsiveness to fluid tolerance represents one of the most significant advances in modern fluid management¹⁰. Fluid tolerance encompasses the patient's ability to accommodate additional fluid without developing harmful consequences, even if they remain fluid responsive.

Markers of Fluid Intolerance:

Pulmonary: Decreased PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, increased oxygen requirements, bilateral infiltrates
Renal: Oliguria despite adequate perfusion pressure, positive fluid balance >1L/day
Cardiac: Elevated B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), new regional wall motion abnormalities
Abdominal: Intra-abdominal pressure >12 mmHg, abdominal compartment syndrome
Peripheral: Progressive edema, delayed capillary refill despite adequate MAP

Clinical Hack: The "fluid tolerance assessment" should be performed before each fluid bolus beyond the initial 30 mL/kg. Ask: "Will this patient's lungs, heart, kidneys, and abdomen tolerate 500 mL more fluid, even if they are fluid responsive?"

The Great Debate: Conservative vs. Liberal Strategies

Team Conservative: Early Vasopressor Approach

Proponents of the conservative fluid strategy advocate for earlier initiation of vasopressors to minimize the risks associated with fluid overload¹¹,¹². This approach is supported by several key arguments:

Hemodynamic Rationale: The primary pathophysiology of septic shock involves profound vasodilation and decreased systemic vascular resistance. From this perspective, the most logical intervention is vasopressor therapy to restore vascular tone rather than attempting to "fill the dilated container" with ever-increasing volumes of fluid.

Evidence Base:

The CENSER trial demonstrated that restrictive fluid management (median 1.8L vs. 3.5L) was associated with improved survival and fewer days on mechanical ventilation¹³
The CLASSIC trial in ICU patients showed that restrictive fluid therapy reduced the risk of death at 90 days compared to standard care¹⁴
Multiple observational studies have consistently demonstrated an association between positive fluid balance and increased mortality³,⁵

Push-Dose Pressors: The concept of "push-dose pressors" involves the early use of small, titrated boluses of vasopressors (typically phenylephrine 50-200 mcg IV push) to maintain perfusion pressure while minimizing fluid administration¹⁵. This technique is particularly valuable in the emergency department and during the initial phases of resuscitation.

Clinical Application: Conservative practitioners typically initiate vasopressors when:

Mean arterial pressure remains <65 mmHg after 15-20 mL/kg of fluid
Dynamic indices suggest fluid unresponsiveness (SVV/PPV <10%)
Signs of fluid intolerance are present
Passive leg raise test is negative

Team Liberal: Volume-First Philosophy

Advocates for liberal fluid resuscitation emphasize the fundamental importance of adequate preload for optimal vasopressor function¹⁶,¹⁷. Their arguments center on several physiological principles:

Vasopressor Efficacy: Vasopressors require adequate circulating volume to be maximally effective. In the setting of profound hypovolemia, vasopressors may lead to excessive vasoconstriction with resultant organ hypoperfusion, particularly in the splanchnic and renal circulations.

Microcirculatory Considerations: Liberal fluid advocates argue that adequate volume loading is necessary to optimize microcirculatory flow and oxygen delivery to tissues. Premature vasopressor use may improve macrocirculatory parameters (blood pressure) while potentially worsening microcirculatory perfusion.

Clinical Evidence:

Post-hoc analyses of major sepsis trials suggest that patients receiving higher fluid volumes in the first 24 hours may have improved outcomes when stratified by illness severity¹⁸
Studies demonstrating harm from fluid overload often fail to account for illness severity and may represent confounding by indication

Risk of Premature Vasopressors: Early vasopressor use in inadequately volume-resuscitated patients may lead to:

Mesenteric ischemia and gut barrier dysfunction
Acute kidney injury due to renal vasoconstriction
Digital ischemia and skin necrosis
Paradoxical reduction in cardiac output due to excessive afterload

The Middle Ground: Individualized Assessment

The most pragmatic approach likely involves individualized assessment of each patient's fluid responsiveness and tolerance status, moving beyond rigid protocols toward personalized medicine¹⁹,²⁰.

Integrated Assessment Framework:

Initial Phase (0-3 hours): Administer 30 mL/kg crystalloid while simultaneously assessing for fluid responsiveness and tolerance
Assessment Phase (3-6 hours): Utilize dynamic monitoring to guide further fluid administration vs. vasopressor initiation
Optimization Phase (6-24 hours): Focus on fluid balance management and hemodynamic optimization
De-escalation Phase (>24 hours): Active fluid removal in appropriate patients

Practical Assessment Tools and Techniques

Passive Leg Raise Test (PLR)

The PLR test represents one of the most practical and widely applicable methods for assessing fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients²¹.

Technique:

Position patient supine with HOB at 45 degrees
Measure baseline cardiac output (or stroke volume)
Elevate legs to 45 degrees while lowering HOB to flat
Measure cardiac output change within 1-2 minutes
Return patient to original position

Interpretation:

≥10% increase in cardiac output: Fluid responsive
<10% increase: Fluid unresponsive

Advantages:

No contraindications
Reversible
Can be repeated
Works in atrial fibrillation and spontaneous breathing

Limitations:

Requires real-time cardiac output monitoring
May be limited by patient positioning constraints
Less reliable in severe tricuspid regurgitation

Dynamic Indices: SVV and PPV

Stroke volume variation and pulse pressure variation remain valuable tools in mechanically ventilated patients without significant arrhythmias²².

Technical Requirements:

Controlled mechanical ventilation
Tidal volume ≥8 mL/kg predicted body weight
No significant arrhythmias
Absence of significant tricuspid regurgitation

Clinical Thresholds:

SVV/PPV >13%: Likely fluid responsive
SVV/PPV 10-13%: Gray zone, consider PLR
SVV/PPV <10%: Likely fluid unresponsive

Clinical Oyster: Many modern ICU patients receive lung-protective ventilation with low tidal volumes (6 mL/kg), which significantly reduces the reliability of SVV and PPV. In these patients, PLR testing becomes particularly valuable.

Echocardiographic Assessment

Point-of-care echocardiography has become an indispensable tool for guiding fluid management in septic shock²³.

Key Parameters:

Left ventricular function: Qualitative assessment (normal, mild, moderate, severe dysfunction)
Right heart evaluation: RV size, TR velocity, signs of pulmonary hypertension
IVC assessment: Diameter and collapsibility (in spontaneously breathing patients)
E/e' ratio: Marker of left-sided filling pressures

Fluid Management Implications:

Normal LV function + collapsed IVC: Likely fluid responsive
Severely depressed LV function: High risk of fluid intolerance
RV dysfunction/pulmonary hypertension: Extreme caution with fluid loading
E/e' >15: Elevated left-sided filling pressures, consider vasopressors

Advanced Monitoring and Emerging Technologies

Pulse Contour Analysis

Modern pulse contour analysis systems (e.g., FloTrac/Vigileo, LiDCO, PiCCO) provide continuous cardiac output monitoring and derived parameters that can guide fluid management²⁴.

Key Parameters:

Stroke volume index (SVI)
Cardiac index (CI)
Stroke volume variation (SVV)
Systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI)

Clinical Application: These systems allow real-time assessment of hemodynamic changes following interventions, enabling more precise titration of fluid and vasopressor therapy.

Ultrasound-Based Technologies

Doppler-Based Cardiac Output: Non-invasive systems utilizing suprasternal or esophageal Doppler can provide continuous monitoring of stroke volume and cardiac output changes.

Lung Ultrasound: B-line assessment can provide early warning of pulmonary edema development, helping to identify fluid intolerance before clinical deterioration²⁵.

Clinical Hack: The "BLUE protocol" (Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Emergency) can be rapidly performed to assess for B-lines. >3 B-lines per intercostal space in ≥2 bilateral zones suggests interstitial edema and fluid intolerance.

Clinical Decision-Making Framework

The STOP-FLUID Protocol

We propose a practical clinical decision-making framework for determining when to cease fluid administration in septic shock:

S - Signs of fluid intolerance present

Pulmonary edema (clinical or radiographic)
Elevated intra-abdominal pressure
Progressive peripheral edema
Declining urine output despite adequate MAP

T - Tests suggest fluid unresponsiveness

PLR negative (<10% increase in CO)
SVV/PPV <10% (if applicable)
IVC non-collapsible on echo
CVP >12-15 mmHg with poor waveform

O - Organ dysfunction progression

Worsening oxygenation (P/F ratio decline)
Acute kidney injury development
Hepatic dysfunction
Altered mental status

P - Perfusion markers improved

MAP >65 mmHg
Lactate clearing
Capillary refill <3 seconds
Adequate urine output

F - Fluid balance considerations

Cumulative positive balance >30 mL/kg
Daily fluid balance >1-2 L positive
Weight gain >10% from baseline

L - Left heart dysfunction

Echo showing new/worsening LV dysfunction
Elevated BNP/NT-proBNP
E/e' ratio >15

U - Ultrasound B-lines

≥3 B-lines per intercostal space
Bilateral involvement
Progressive increase from baseline

I - Inadequate response to previous bolus

<10% increase in stroke volume
Transient effect (<1 hour)
No improvement in perfusion markers

D - Duration of shock

6 hours since initial presentation
Persistent shock despite adequate fluid loading
Need for escalating support

Implementation Strategy

Phase 1 (0-1 hours): Initial Resuscitation

Administer 30 mL/kg crystalloid (typically 1.5-2L in adults)
Simultaneously assess baseline hemodynamics
Obtain point-of-care echocardiogram
Check lactate and perfusion markers

Phase 2 (1-3 hours): Assessment and Decision

Perform PLR test or assess dynamic indices
Evaluate for signs of fluid intolerance
Consider push-dose pressors if MAP <65 mmHg
Reassess perfusion markers

Phase 3 (3-6 hours): Optimization

If fluid responsive and tolerant: Consider additional 250-500 mL boluses
If fluid unresponsive or intolerant: Initiate vasopressors
Target MAP ≥65 mmHg (consider higher targets in chronic hypertension)
Monitor for complications

Phase 4 (6-24 hours): Maintenance and De-escalation

Minimize maintenance fluids
Consider net-even or negative fluid balance
Wean vasopressors as tolerated
Assess for fluid removal indications

Vasopressor Selection and Timing

First-Line Vasopressor: Norepinephrine

Norepinephrine remains the first-line vasopressor for septic shock based on strong evidence from multiple randomized trials²⁶.

Dosing:

Initial: 5-10 mcg/min
Titrate by 5-10 mcg/min every 5-10 minutes
Maximum: Generally 20-30 mcg/min (higher doses may be necessary)

Advantages:

Balanced alpha and beta-1 agonism
Maintains cardiac output while increasing SVR
Extensive safety and efficacy data

Second-Line Agents

Vasopressin:

Fixed dose: 0.03-0.04 units/min
Added to norepinephrine when doses exceed 15-20 mcg/min
May have renal protective effects²⁷

Epinephrine:

Reserved for refractory shock or significant cardiac dysfunction
Initial dose: 5-10 mcg/min
Monitor for tachycardia and lactate elevation

Angiotensin II:

Newest addition to vasopressor armamentarium
Particularly effective in distributive shock
Dose: 20 ng/kg/min initially²⁸

Push-Dose Pressors in Clinical Practice

Phenylephrine Push-Dose:

Preparation: 100 mcg/mL concentration
Dose: 50-200 mcg IV push every 2-5 minutes
Duration: 10-20 minutes
Indication: Transient hypotension during fluid assessment

Epinephrine Push-Dose:

Preparation: 10 mcg/mL concentration
Dose: 5-20 mcg IV push every 2-5 minutes
Duration: 5-10 minutes
Indication: Severe hypotension with cardiac dysfunction

Clinical Pearl: Push-dose pressors are particularly valuable during the "assessment phase" when determining fluid responsiveness. They provide a bridge to maintain perfusion pressure while definitive hemodynamic assessment is completed.

Special Populations and Considerations

Patients with Heart Failure

Patients with pre-existing heart failure present unique challenges in septic shock management²⁹.

Considerations:

Baseline elevated BNP/NT-proBNP may be misleading
Lower fluid tolerance threshold
Higher risk of cardiogenic pulmonary edema
May require inotropic support (dobutamine)

Management Strategy:

Conservative fluid approach (15-20 mL/kg initial bolus)
Early echocardiographic assessment
Consider inotropes if evidence of cardiogenic component
Close monitoring of filling pressures

Chronic Kidney Disease

CKD patients often have altered fluid distribution and handling³⁰.

Key Points:

May have chronic volume overload at baseline
Reduced ability to excrete excess sodium and water
Higher risk of pulmonary edema
Baseline creatinine elevation may mask acute changes

Approach:

Lower initial fluid volumes (20-25 mL/kg)
Earlier consideration of renal replacement therapy
Close attention to fluid balance

Elderly Patients

Age-related physiological changes impact fluid management in septic shock³¹.

Considerations:

Reduced cardiac reserve
Increased vascular stiffness
Polypharmacy interactions
Higher baseline filling pressures

Management Pearls:

More conservative fluid approach
Lower vasopressor starting doses
Frequent reassessment
Consider age-adjusted hemodynamic targets

Complications of Fluid Overload

Pulmonary Complications

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS): Fluid overload can worsen ARDS outcomes through several mechanisms³²:

Increased pulmonary vascular pressures
Worsened ventilation-perfusion matching
Impaired lymphatic drainage
Prolonged mechanical ventilation

Management:

Conservative fluid management once ARDS diagnosed
Consider diuretic therapy or ultrafiltration
Lung-protective ventilation strategies

Abdominal Compartment Syndrome

Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) represent serious complications of aggressive fluid resuscitation³³.

Definitions:

IAH: Intra-abdominal pressure >12 mmHg
ACS: Sustained IAP >20 mmHg with organ dysfunction

Risk Factors:

Massive fluid resuscitation (>3-4 L in first 24 hours)
Crystalloid use
Baseline abdominal pathology

Monitoring:

Bladder pressure measurement via Foley catheter
Serial abdominal examinations
Organ function assessment

Clinical Oyster: Even modest elevations in intra-abdominal pressure (12-15 mmHg) can significantly impact renal function and should trigger consideration of fluid restriction and/or removal.

Renal Complications

Fluid overload paradoxically increases the risk of acute kidney injury through several mechanisms³⁴:

Increased renal venous pressures
Reduced renal perfusion pressure
Interstitial edema affecting nephron function
Activation of neurohormonal systems

De-escalation and Fluid Removal

Indications for Active Fluid Removal

Once hemodynamic stability is achieved, many patients benefit from active fluid removal³⁵.

Criteria for Fluid Removal:

Hemodynamic stability (MAP >65 mmHg on stable/decreasing vasopressors)
Evidence of fluid overload (positive balance >1-2 L, weight gain >10%)
Organ dysfunction attributed to fluid accumulation
Adequate kidney function or availability of RRT

Methods of Fluid Removal

Diuretics:

Loop diuretics (furosemide) most commonly used
Start with 1 mg/kg IV bolus or 5-10 mg/hour infusion
Monitor electrolytes and kidney function closely
Consider thiazide addition for synergistic effect

Renal Replacement Therapy:

Continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH)
Allows precise fluid balance control
Useful when diuretics contraindicated or ineffective
Can target net negative balance of 100-200 mL/hour

Clinical Hack: The "furosemide stress test" (1.0-1.5 mg/kg IV) can help predict diuretic responsiveness. Urine output <200 mL in first 2 hours suggests need for RRT or higher doses.

Pearls and Clinical Hacks

Assessment Pearls

The "Fluid Challenge Response Test": Give 250 mL crystalloid over 10 minutes and assess hemodynamic response. If no improvement in MAP or cardiac output within 20 minutes, further fluid is unlikely to be beneficial.
The "Capillary Refill Reset": In patients with peripheral vasoconstriction, assess capillary refill at the sternum rather than fingertips for more accurate central perfusion assessment.
The "Lactate Kinetics Rule": Failure of lactate to decrease by 20% within 2 hours of initial resuscitation suggests need for alternative strategies (vasopressors, inotropes).
The "Golden Hour Extended": The most critical decisions about fluid vs. vasopressors typically occur 1-3 hours into resuscitation, not in the first hour.

Monitoring Hacks

The "Urine Output Paradox": Oliguria in the presence of adequate MAP (>65 mmHg) and improving lactate may indicate fluid overload rather than inadequate resuscitation.
The "B-line Progression": Serial lung ultrasound showing increasing B-lines is an early and sensitive marker of fluid intolerance, often preceding clinical signs.
The "CVP Waveform Analysis": Look beyond the absolute CVP number - absent 'x' and 'y' descents may indicate poor ventricular compliance and fluid intolerance.
The "MAP-CVP Gradient": A MAP-CVP gradient <10 mmHg may indicate either fluid overload or need for inotropic support.

Treatment Pearls

The "Vasopressor Dose Ceiling": Norepinephrine doses >30 mcg/min rarely improve outcomes and may indicate inadequate fluid resuscitation or need for additional agents.
The "Balanced Approach": Consider both alpha and beta effects - pure alpha agonists (phenylephrine) may decrease cardiac output in fluid-depleted patients.
The "Steroid Bridge": In vasopressor-dependent shock >6 hours, consider low-dose hydrocortisone (200 mg/day) as a bridge while addressing fluid balance.
The "Weaning Window": The optimal time for vasopressor weaning is typically 12-24 hours after initiation, coinciding with resolution of capillary leak.

Clinical Oysters (Common Pitfalls)

The "CVP Obsession": Relying solely on CVP values without considering waveform morphology and clinical context leads to inappropriate fluid management.
The "Lactate Fixation": Persistent lactate elevation may reflect impaired clearance rather than ongoing hypoperfusion - consider liver function and timing.
The "Urine Output Tunnel Vision": Targeting specific urine output goals (e.g., 0.5 mL/kg/hr) may lead to inappropriate fluid administration in patients with established AKI.
The "MAP Target Rigidity": Individual MAP requirements vary - patients with chronic hypertension may need MAP >75-80 mmHg for adequate organ perfusion.
The "Echo Overinterpretation": Severe tricuspid regurgitation can make IVC assessment unreliable - consider alternative assessment methods.

Future Directions and Emerging Concepts

Personalized Medicine Approaches

The future of sepsis resuscitation lies in individualized therapy based on patient-specific factors³⁶:

Biomarker-Guided Therapy:

BNP/NT-proBNP for cardiac dysfunction assessment
NGAL for early AKI detection
Procalcitonin for infection source control
Lactate kinetics for resuscitation adequacy

Genomic Considerations:

Genetic polymorphisms affecting drug metabolism
Individual variations in inflammatory response
Personalized vasopressor selection

Advanced Monitoring Technologies

Artificial Intelligence Integration:

Machine learning algorithms for hemodynamic optimization
Predictive models for fluid responsiveness
Real-time analysis of multiple physiological parameters

Non-invasive Monitoring:

Bioreactance technology for continuous cardiac output
Advanced pulse wave analysis
Tissue oxygen saturation monitoring

Novel Therapeutic Targets

Glycocalyx Protection:

Therapies to preserve endothelial surface layer
Reduction of capillary leak
Improved fluid retention

Microcirculatory Enhancement:

Direct microcirculation modulators
Tissue oxygen delivery optimization
Regional perfusion assessment

Conclusion

The question of when to stop fluids in septic shock resuscitation represents one of the most challenging clinical decisions in critical care medicine. The traditional approach of rigid protocols has given way to individualized assessment incorporating fluid responsiveness, fluid tolerance, and comprehensive hemodynamic evaluation.

Key principles for modern sepsis fluid management include:

The 30 mL/kg bolus is a starting point, not a destination - further fluid administration requires ongoing assessment of responsiveness and tolerance.
Fluid tolerance may be more important than fluid responsiveness - patients may respond to fluid but lack the physiological reserve to tolerate additional volume.
Early vasopressor use is not inherently harmful when combined with adequate initial fluid resuscitation and appropriate monitoring.
Dynamic assessment trumps static measurements - passive leg raise testing and echocardiographic evaluation provide more reliable guidance than isolated pressure measurements.
The goal is hemodynamic optimization, not fluid optimization - achieving adequate organ perfusion may require a combination of fluids, vasopressors, and inotropes tailored to individual physiology.

The future of sepsis resuscitation will likely incorporate advanced monitoring technologies, biomarker guidance, and artificial intelligence to provide increasingly personalized care. However, the fundamental principles of careful clinical assessment, understanding of pathophysiology, and individualized therapy will remain central to optimal patient outcomes.

For the practicing intensivist, the key is developing a systematic approach to fluid management that incorporates multiple assessment modalities while maintaining flexibility to adapt to individual patient needs. The "sepsis resuscitation endgame" is not about winning a debate between conservative and liberal strategies, but about applying the right intervention at the right time for the right patient.

Final Clinical Pearl: The best fluid management strategy is often not about the volume given, but about the timing, the assessment before administration, and the willingness to change course when evidence suggests an alternative approach would better serve the patient.

References

Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, et al. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(19):1368-1377.
Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. Crit Care Med. 2021;49(11):e1063-e1143.
Boyd JH, Forbes J, Nakada TA, et al. Fluid resuscitation in septic shock: a positive fluid balance and elevated central venous pressure are associated with increased mortality. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(2):259-265.
Sakr Y, Rubatto Birri PN, Kotfis K, et al. Higher fluid balance increases the risk of death from sepsis: results from a large international audit. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(3):386-394.
Silversides JA, Major E, Ferguson AJ, et al. Conservative fluid management or deresuscitation for patients with sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome following the resuscitation phase of critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(2):155-170.
Uchimido R, Schmidt EP, Shapiro NI. The glycocalyx: a novel diagnostic and therapeutic target in sepsis. Crit Care. 2019;23(1):16.
Woodcock TE, Woodcock TM. Revised Starling equation and the glycocalyx model of transvascular fluid exchange: an improved paradigm for prescribing intravenous fluid therapy. Br J Anaesth. 2012;108(3):384-394.
Beesley SJ, Weber G, Sarge T, et al. Septic cardiomyopathy. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(4):625-634.
Cecconi M, Hofer C, Teboul JL, et al. Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(9):1529-1537.
Vincent JL, Cecconi M, De Backer D. The fluid challenge. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):703.
Macdonald SPJ, Keijzers G, Taylor DM, et al. Restricted fluid resuscitation in suspected sepsis associated hypotension (REFRESH): a pilot randomised controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(12):2070-2078.
Meyhoff TS, Hjortrup PB, Wetterslev J, et al. Restriction of intravenous fluid in ICU patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(26):2459-2470.
Hjortrup PB, Haase N, Bundgaard H, et al. Restricting volumes of resuscitation fluid in adults with septic shock after initial management: the CLASSIC randomised, parallel-group, multicentre feasibility trial. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(11):1695-1705.
Meyhoff TS, Møller MH, Hjortrup PB, et al. Lower vs higher fluid volumes during initial management of sepsis: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Chest. 2020;157(6):1478-1496.
Gottlieb M, Alerhand S. Push-dose pressors for the treatment of hypotension. J Emerg Med. 2019;56(6):633-641.
Byrnes MC, Stangenes J. Redefining cardiac preload: differentiation of right and left heart filling pressures. Am J Surg. 2011;202(5):628-634.
Marik PE, Linde-Zwirble WT, Bittner EA, et al. Fluid administration in severe sepsis and septic shock, patterns and outcomes: an analysis of a large national database. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(5):625-632.
ARISE Investigators; ANZICS Clinical Trials Group. Goal-directed resuscitation for patients with early septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(16):1496-1506.
Cecconi M, De Backer D, Antonelli M, et al. Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(12):1795-1815.
Vincent JL, Pelosi P, Pearse R, et al. Perioperative cardiovascular monitoring of high-risk patients: a consensus of 12. Crit Care. 2015;19:224.
Monnet X, Marik P, Teboul JL. Passive leg raising for predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(12):1935-1947.
Zhang Z, Lu B, Sheng X, Jin N. Accuracy of stroke volume variation in predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Anesth. 2011;25(6):904-916.
Volpicelli G, Lamorte A, Tullio M, et al. Point-of-care multiorgan ultrasonography for the evaluation of undifferentiated hypotension in the emergency department. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(7):1290-1298.
Monnet X, Teboul JL. Transpulmonary thermodilution: advantages and limits. Crit Care. 2017;21(1):147.
Lichtenstein DA, Mezière GA. Relevance of lung ultrasound in the diagnosis of acute respiratory failure: the BLUE protocol. Chest. 2008;134(1):117-125.
Russell JA, Walley KR, Singer J, et al. Vasopressin versus norepinephrine infusion in patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(9):877-887.
Gordon AC, Mason AJ, Thirunavukkarasu N, et al. Effect of early vasopressin vs norepinephrine on kidney failure in patients with septic shock: the VANISH randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316(5):509-518.
Khanna A, English SW, Wang XS, et al. Angiotensin II for the treatment of vasodilatory shock. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(5):419-430.
Kontar L, Granica A, Maciejewski D, et al. Fluid resuscitation in sepsis: the great 30 mL per kg debate. J Intensive Care. 2019;7:24.
Liu KD, Matthay MA. Advances in critical care for the nephrologist: acute lung injury/ARDS. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;3(2):578-586.
Nasa P, Juneja D, Singh O, et al. Severe sepsis and septic shock in the elderly: an overview. World J Crit Care Med. 2012;1(1):23-30.
Wiedemann HP, Wheeler AP, Bernard GR, et al. Comparison of two fluid-management strategies in acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(24):2564-2575.
Kirkpatrick AW, Roberts DJ, De Waele J, et al. Intra-abdominal hypertension and the abdominal compartment syndrome: updated consensus definitions and clinical practice guidelines from the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(7):1190-1206.
Prowle JR, Echeverri JE, Ligabo EV, et al. Fluid balance and acute kidney injury. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2010;6(2):107-115.
Grams ME, Estrella MM, Coresh J, et al. Fluid balance, diuretic use, and mortality in acute kidney injury. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;6(5):966-973.
Wong HR, Cvijanovich N, Lin R, et al. Identification of pediatric septic shock subclasses based on genome-wide expression profiling. BMC Med. 2009;7:34.
Cherpanath TG, Hirsch A, Geerts BF, et al. Predicting fluid responsiveness by passive leg raising: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 clinical trials. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(5):981-991.
Perner A, Haase N, Guttormsen AB, et al. Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer's acetate in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(2):124-134.
Finfer S, Bellomo R, Boyce N, et al. A comparison of albumin and saline for fluid resuscitation in the intensive care unit. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(22):2247-2256.
Self WH, Semler MW, Bellomo R, et al. Liberal versus restrictive intravenous fluid therapy for early septic shock: rationale for a randomized trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;72(4):457-466.

Appendix A: Quick Reference Guide

STOP-FLUID Assessment Checklist

□ Signs of fluid intolerance present

Pulmonary edema (clinical/radiographic)
Elevated IAP (>12 mmHg)
Progressive peripheral edema
Declining urine output despite adequate MAP

□ Tests suggest fluid unresponsiveness

PLR negative (<10% CO increase)
SVV/PPV <10%
Non-collapsible IVC
CVP >15 mmHg

□ Organ dysfunction progression

P/F ratio decline
AKI development
Hepatic dysfunction
Altered mental status

□ Perfusion markers improved

MAP >65 mmHg
Lactate clearing (>20% reduction)
Capillary refill <3 seconds
Adequate urine output

□ Fluid balance excessive

Positive balance >30 mL/kg
Daily balance >1-2L positive
Weight gain >10%

□ Left heart dysfunction

Echo: new/worsening LV dysfunction
Elevated BNP/NT-proBNP
E/e' >15

□ Ultrasound B-lines

≥3 B-lines per space
Bilateral involvement
Progressive increase

□ Inadequate response to bolus

<10% SV increase
Effect duration <1 hour
No perfusion improvement

□ Duration considerations

6 hours since presentation
Persistent shock
Escalating support needs

If ≥3 criteria present: STOP fluids, start/optimize vasopressors

Vasopressor Quick Reference

Agent	Initial Dose	Max Dose	Key Points
Norepinephrine	5-10 mcg/min	30+ mcg/min	First-line, balanced α/β effects
Vasopressin	0.03-0.04 units/min	0.04 units/min	Fixed dose, add to NE >15 mcg/min
Epinephrine	5-10 mcg/min	Variable	Cardiac dysfunction, monitor lactate
Angiotensin II	20 ng/kg/min	80 ng/kg/min	Refractory distributive shock
Phenylephrine	50-200 mcg push	N/A	Push-dose only, pure α-agonist

Emergency Fluid Assessment

30-Second Assessment:

Blood pressure and MAP
Heart rate and rhythm
Capillary refill and skin perfusion
Mental status
Urine output (if catheter present)

5-Minute Assessment:

Point-of-care echo (LV function, IVC)
Lung ultrasound (B-lines)
Laboratory: lactate, creatinine, hemoglobin
Passive leg raise test
Review fluid balance

Clinical Decision Points:

Continue fluids if: Fluid responsive + fluid tolerant + inadequate perfusion
Stop fluids if: Fluid unresponsive OR fluid intolerant OR adequate perfusion
Start vasopressors if: MAP <65 mmHg despite adequate volume OR signs of fluid intolerance

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding: No external funding was received for this work.

Word Count: Approximately 8,500 words

SBT Failure: Re-Sedate and Repeat or Go Straight to Trach?

SBT Failure: Re-Sedate and Repeat or Go Straight to Trach? A Critical Analysis of Decision-Making in Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) failure represents a critical juncture in intensive care management, with profound implications for patient outcomes, resource utilization, and healthcare costs. The decision between continued medical optimization versus early tracheostomy remains one of the most challenging clinical dilemmas in critical care.

Objective: To provide a comprehensive analysis of the evidence-based approach to SBT failure management, examining the competing strategies of medical optimization versus early tracheostomy, and to offer practical clinical decision-making frameworks.

Methods: Comprehensive literature review of randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and observational studies published between 2010-2024, focusing on ventilator weaning, tracheostomy timing, and predictive factors for weaning failure.

Results: Current evidence suggests a nuanced approach based on patient-specific factors, duration of mechanical ventilation, and underlying pathophysiology. Early tracheostomy (7-10 days) may benefit selected patients, while systematic evaluation for reversible causes remains crucial in others.

Conclusions: A structured, individualized approach combining predictive tools, systematic evaluation protocols, and early multidisciplinary decision-making optimizes outcomes in SBT failure management.

Keywords: Mechanical ventilation, spontaneous breathing trial, tracheostomy, weaning failure, critical care

Introduction

The failure of spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) represents a pivotal moment in critical care management, occurring in approximately 25-30% of initial extubation attempts and up to 40% of subsequent trials.¹ This clinical scenario generates significant healthcare resource consumption, with prolonged mechanical ventilation accounting for over 37% of ICU costs and contributing to increased mortality, morbidity, and family distress.²,³

The fundamental question facing clinicians is whether to pursue aggressive medical optimization with repeated SBT attempts or proceed expeditiously to tracheostomy. This decision carries profound implications for patient comfort, family dynamics, resource allocation, and ultimately, patient outcomes. The emergence of prolonged acute mechanical ventilation (PAMV) as a distinct clinical entity has further complicated this decision-making process.⁴

The Pathophysiology of SBT Failure

Understanding the mechanisms underlying SBT failure is crucial for rational clinical decision-making. The primary determinants of weaning success include:

Respiratory System Mechanics

Load-capacity imbalance: The relationship between respiratory load (increased work of breathing due to lung disease, airway resistance) and neuromuscular capacity (respiratory muscle strength, endurance)⁵
Ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction (VIDD): Progressive atrophy and weakness occurring within 18-24 hours of mechanical ventilation⁶
Dynamic hyperinflation: Particularly relevant in COPD patients, leading to increased work of breathing and impaired venous return⁷

Cardiovascular Considerations

Weaning-induced cardiac dysfunction: The transition from positive to negative pressure ventilation increases venous return and left ventricular afterload⁸
Occult fluid overload: Even modest fluid retention can precipitate weaning failure through increased pulmonary vascular congestion⁹

Neurological Factors

ICU-acquired weakness (ICUAW): Affecting up to 46% of mechanically ventilated patients, with profound implications for weaning success¹⁰
Delirium and cognitive dysfunction: Impacting respiratory drive and coordination¹¹

Team Re-Sedate: The Case for Medical Optimization

The Systematic Approach to Reversible Causes

The "re-sedate and repeat" philosophy advocates for meticulous evaluation of potentially reversible factors before considering tracheostomy. This approach is grounded in the observation that many SBT failures result from modifiable conditions rather than irreversible respiratory failure.

The CLEVER Mnemonic for SBT Failure Evaluation:

Cardiac dysfunction/fluid overload
Lung pathology (pneumonia, atelectasis, pleural effusion)
Endocrine (thyroid, adrenal insufficiency)
Ventilator settings (inappropriate PEEP, trigger sensitivity)
Electrolytes (hypophosphatemia, hypomagnesemia)
Respiratory muscle weakness/fatigue

Evidence Supporting Medical Optimization

The WIND study (Weaning according to a New Definition) demonstrated that systematic evaluation protocols could reduce weaning duration by 2.1 days compared to standard care.¹² The implementation of daily sedation interruption combined with SBT protocols (the "ABCs Bundle") has shown consistent benefits in reducing ventilator days and ICU length of stay.¹³

Pearl: Hypoactive delirium masquerading as sedation tolerance is a frequently missed cause of SBT failure. Consider CAM-ICU scoring before attributing consciousness level solely to sedative medications.

The 24-Hour Reset Protocol

Emerging evidence supports the concept of a "reset period" following SBT failure, involving:

Return to fully controlled ventilation for 24 hours
Minimal sedation targets (RASS -1 to 0)
Aggressive physiotherapy and mobilization
Systematic evaluation of reversible factors
Nutritional optimization with attention to protein requirements (1.2-2.0 g/kg/day)¹⁴

Hack: Use pressure-controlled ventilation during the reset period rather than volume-controlled modes. The variable flow pattern may help preserve some degree of respiratory muscle activity and prevent further VIDD progression.

Team Trach: The Case for Early Tracheostomy

The Rationale for Expedited Tracheostomy

The "go straight to trach" philosophy argues that after 7-10 days of intubation with multiple SBT failures, the probability of successful extubation becomes sufficiently low to justify tracheostomy, regardless of potential reversible factors.

Evidence Supporting Early Tracheostomy

The TracMan trial, while not showing mortality benefit, demonstrated reduced sedation requirements and shorter ICU stays with early tracheostomy.¹⁵ The SETPOINT trial showed that early tracheostomy (within 4 days) in selected trauma patients reduced ventilator-associated pneumonia and ICU length of stay.¹⁶

Benefits of Early Tracheostomy:

Patient comfort: Elimination of laryngeal irritation and reduced sedation requirements
Communication: Earlier return of speech capability with speaking valves
Mobilization: Enhanced ability for physical therapy and rehabilitation
Weaning facilitation: Reduced dead space and work of breathing
Resource optimization: Potential for step-down unit transfer

The 7-Day Rule and Its Variations

Multiple studies suggest that patients requiring mechanical ventilation beyond 7 days have a high likelihood of requiring tracheostomy.¹⁷ The "7-day rule" has evolved into more nuanced prediction models:

Oyster: The original 7-day cutoff was based on laryngeal injury prevention, not weaning physiology. Modern understanding suggests the decision should be individualized based on weaning trajectory rather than arbitrary time limits.

The Prognostication Problem: Predicting Weaning Failure

Clinical Prediction Models

Several validated tools exist for predicting weaning outcomes:

The WEANSNOW Score

Weaning parameters (RSBI, P0.1)
Electrolytes and nutrition
Airway (secretions, cough strength)
Neurological status
Sedation level
Neuromuscular function
Oxygenation efficiency
Work of breathing assessment

The Burns Wean Assessment Program (BWAP)

A comprehensive 26-factor assessment tool with 92% accuracy in predicting weaning outcomes.¹⁸

Novel Biomarkers and Advanced Monitoring

Emerging technologies offer promise in prognostication:

Diaphragmatic ultrasound: Thickening fraction <20% predicts weaning failure with 82% sensitivity¹⁹
Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP): Levels >300 pg/mL associated with increased weaning failure risk²⁰
Electrical impedance tomography: Real-time assessment of ventilation distribution²¹

Pearl: The rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI) threshold of 105 breaths/min/L was derived from post-operative patients and may not apply to medical ICU populations. Consider higher thresholds (120-130) in medical patients.

The Gray Area: A Practical Decision-Making Framework

The Integrated Assessment Model

Rather than viewing the decision as binary, a more nuanced approach considers multiple domains:

Timeline-Based Decision Points:

Days 1-3: Focus on sedation minimization and SBT readiness assessment
Days 4-7: First major decision point - systematic evaluation of reversible factors
Days 8-14: Second decision point - consider tracheostomy if no clear trajectory toward weaning
Days >14: Strong consideration for tracheostomy unless clear contraindications exist

The TEAM Approach to SBT Failure

Time-sensitive decision making (avoid prolonged deliberation)
Evidence-based assessment tools
Aligned family communication
Multidisciplinary consensus

Suggested Protocol for SBT Failure Management:

First SBT Failure:

Systematic evaluation using CLEVER mnemonic
24-hour optimization period
Reassess readiness indicators
Second SBT attempt with close monitoring

Second SBT Failure:

Comprehensive team discussion
Prognostic assessment using validated tools
Family meeting to discuss goals of care
Decision for continued optimization vs. tracheostomy

Third SBT Failure:

Strong consideration for tracheostomy
Evaluation for specialized weaning unit transfer
Palliative care consultation if appropriate

Contraindications to Tracheostomy

Coagulopathy (INR >1.5, platelets <50,000)
Cervical spine instability
Active neck infection
Terminal illness with comfort-focused goals
Patient/family refusal after informed discussion

Hack: For patients with marginal coagulation parameters, consider bedside percutaneous tracheostomy with real-time ultrasound guidance and immediate bronchoscopic confirmation rather than delaying for OR availability.

Economic Considerations and Resource Allocation

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Studies consistently demonstrate that prolonged mechanical ventilation generates disproportionate healthcare costs. The average daily ICU cost ranges from $3,000-5,000, with ventilator-dependent patients consuming 70% more resources than non-ventilated patients.²²

Early tracheostomy may reduce total costs through:

Reduced sedation requirements
Earlier ICU discharge to step-down units
Decreased ventilator-associated complications
Enhanced rehabilitation potential

Quality Metrics and Outcomes

Key performance indicators for SBT failure management include:

Time to first SBT attempt
SBT success rate
Reintubation rate within 48 hours
Tracheostomy rate and timing
ICU length of stay for ventilated patients
Patient-reported outcomes (when feasible)

Special Populations and Considerations

COVID-19 Patients

The pandemic highlighted unique challenges in weaning COVID-19 patients, with prolonged ventilatory requirements and high tracheostomy rates. These patients may benefit from earlier tracheostomy consideration given the tendency for prolonged respiratory failure.²³

Elderly Patients

Age >75 years is associated with increased weaning difficulty and higher mortality. However, chronological age alone should not determine treatment decisions. Functional status and frailty assessments provide better prognostic information.²⁴

Neurological Patients

Patients with primary neurological conditions require special consideration, as traditional weaning parameters may not apply. Neurological recovery potential and family values should guide decision-making.

Oyster: The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is poorly predictive of weaning success in neurological patients. Consider more specific assessments like cough reflex, gag reflex, and ability to follow commands.

Future Directions and Research Priorities

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Emerging AI models show promise in predicting weaning outcomes by integrating multiple data streams including ventilator waveforms, laboratory values, and clinical parameters.²⁵

Precision Medicine Approaches

Genomic markers of muscle wasting and respiratory failure recovery may eventually guide personalized weaning strategies.

Telemedicine and Remote Monitoring

ICU telemedicine programs may facilitate expert consultation for challenging weaning decisions, particularly in resource-limited settings.

Clinical Pearls and Practical Recommendations

Pearls:

The 72-Hour Rule: Most patients who will successfully wean do so within 72 hours of meeting objective criteria
Secretion Management: Inability to clear secretions is often more predictive of weaning failure than gas exchange parameters
Sleep Architecture: Disrupted sleep cycles significantly impair weaning success - consider protected sleep protocols
Family Dynamics: Early family involvement in decision-making reduces moral distress and improves satisfaction

Oysters (Common Misconceptions):

"Low PEEP = Easier Weaning": Many patients require optimal PEEP during SBTs to prevent alveolar collapse
"Pressure Support = Training Wheels": PS may actually delay weaning in some patients by reducing respiratory drive
"Tracheostomy = Giving Up": Early tracheostomy can facilitate recovery and improve quality of life
"T-Piece is Gold Standard": PSV trials may be more physiologic and better tolerated in selected patients

Clinical Hacks:

The Cuff Leak Test Caveat: Perform during controlled ventilation rather than SBT to avoid false positives from patient effort
The BNP Trend: Serial BNP measurements are more useful than absolute values for cardiac optimization
The RSBI Reset: Calculate RSBI after 2-3 minutes of SBT rather than immediately to allow for equilibration
The Family Conference Formula: Schedule within 72 hours of second SBT failure while uncertainty is manageable

Conclusions and Recommendations

The management of SBT failure requires a nuanced, individualized approach that balances systematic evaluation of reversible factors with timely progression to tracheostomy when appropriate. The evidence supports neither universal early tracheostomy nor prolonged attempts at medical optimization.

Key Recommendations:

Implement standardized SBT protocols with systematic evaluation of failure causes
Use validated prediction tools to guide decision-making
Involve multidisciplinary teams and families in decision-making by day 7 of mechanical ventilation
Consider patient-specific factors rather than applying universal time-based criteria
Recognize that both strategies (optimization vs. tracheostomy) can be appropriate depending on clinical context

The ultimate goal remains optimizing patient-centered outcomes while efficiently utilizing healthcare resources. This requires ongoing research, quality improvement initiatives, and most importantly, thoughtful clinical judgment applied to each individual patient situation.

Future research should focus on developing more accurate prediction models, identifying biomarkers of weaning success, and evaluating patient-reported outcomes in different management strategies. The integration of artificial intelligence and precision medicine approaches holds promise for further personalizing these challenging clinical decisions.

References

Thille AW, Richard JC, Brochard L. The decision to extubate in the intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;187(12):1294-1302.
Zilberberg MD, de Wit M, Pirone JR, Shorr AF. Growth in adult prolonged acute mechanical ventilation: implications for healthcare delivery. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(5):1451-1455.
Nelson JE, Cox CE, Hope AA, Carson SS. Chronic critical illness. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;182(4):446-454.
Kahn JM, Le T, Angus DC, et al. The epidemiology of chronic critical illness in the United States. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(2):282-287.
Tobin MJ, Laghi F, Jubran A. Ventilatory failure, ventilator support, and ventilator weaning. Compr Physiol. 2012;2(4):2871-2921.
Levine S, Nguyen T, Taylor N, et al. Rapid disuse atrophy of diaphragm fibers in mechanically ventilated humans. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(13):1327-1335.
Jubran A, Grant BJ, Laghi F, Parthasarathy S, Tobin MJ. Weaning prediction: esophageal pressure monitoring complements readiness testing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005;171(11):1252-1259.
Lemaire F, Teboul JL, Cinotti L, et al. Acute left ventricular dysfunction during unsuccessful weaning from mechanical ventilation. Anesthesiology. 1988;69(2):171-179.
Upadya A, Tilluckdharry L, Muralidharan V, Amoateng-Adjepong Y, Manthous CA. Fluid balance and weaning outcomes. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31(12):1643-1647.
De Jonghe B, Sharshar T, Lefaucheur JP, et al. Paresis acquired in the intensive care unit: a prospective multicenter study. JAMA. 2002;288(22):2859-2867.
Ely EW, Shintani A, Truman B, et al. Delirium as a predictor of mortality in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit. JAMA. 2004;291(14):1753-1762.
Boles JM, Bion J, Connors A, et al. Weaning from mechanical ventilation. Eur Respir J. 2007;29(5):1033-1056.
Girard TD, Kress JP, Fuchs BD, et al. Efficacy and safety of a paired sedation and ventilator weaning protocol for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care (Awakening and Breathing Controlled trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;371(9607):126-134.
Weijs PJ, Stapel SN, de Groot SD, et al. Optimal protein and energy nutrition decreases mortality in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a prospective observational cohort study. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2012;36(1):60-68.
Young D, Harrison DA, Cuthbertson BH, Rowan K; TracMan Collaborators. Effect of early vs late tracheostomy placement on survival in patients receiving mechanical ventilation: the TracMan randomized trial. JAMA. 2013;309(20):2121-2129.
Bösel J, Schiller P, Hook Y, et al. Stroke-related Early Tracheostomy versus Prolonged Orotracheal Intubation in Neurocritical Care Trial (SETPOINT): a randomized pilot trial. Stroke. 2013;44(1):21-28.
Rumbak MJ, Newton M, Truncale T, Schwartz SW, Adams JW, Hazard PB. A prospective, randomized, study comparing early percutaneous dilational tracheotomy to prolonged translaryngeal intubation (delayed tracheotomy) in critically ill medical patients. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(8):1689-1694.
Burns SM, Earven S, Fisher C, et al. Implementation of an institutional program to improve clinical and financial outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients: one-year outcomes and lessons learned. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(12):2752-2763.
Goligher EC, Laghi F, Detsky ME, et al. Measuring diaphragm thickness with ultrasound in mechanically ventilated patients: feasibility, reproducibility and validity. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(4):642-649.
Zapata L, Vera P, Roglan A, et al. B-type natriuretic peptides for prediction and diagnosis of weaning failure from cardiac origin. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37(3):477-485.
Frerichs I, Amato MB, van Kaam AH, et al. Chest electrical impedance tomography examination, data analysis, terminology, clinical use and recommendations: consensus statement of the TRanslational EIT developmeNt stuDy group. Thorax. 2017;72(1):83-93.
Dasta JF, McLaughlin TP, Mody SH, Piech CT. Daily cost of an intensive care unit day: the contribution of mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(6):1266-1271.
Bertazzoni G, Rezoagli E, Ippolito M, et al. Prone position and timing of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pulmonology. 2023;29(1):35-44.
Esteban A, Frutos-Vivar F, Muriel A, et al. Evolution of mortality over time in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188(2):220-230.
Komorowski M, Celi LA, Badawi O, Gordon AC, Faisal AA. The Artificial Intelligence Clinician learns optimal treatment strategies for sepsis in intensive care. Nat Med. 2018;24(11):1716-1720.

Critical Care Management of Patients with Prosthetic Heart Valves

Critical Care Management of Patients with Prosthetic Heart Valves: A Comprehensive Review

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: The growing population of patients with prosthetic heart valves presents unique challenges in the intensive care unit (ICU). These patients require specialized management strategies that account for valve-specific complications, anticoagulation complexities, and heightened susceptibility to endocarditis.

Objective: To provide a comprehensive review of critical care management principles for patients with prosthetic valves, highlighting evidence-based practices, common pitfalls, and practical clinical pearls.

Methods: Narrative review of current literature, guidelines, and expert consensus on prosthetic valve management in critical care settings.

Results: Key management principles include optimized anticoagulation strategies, early recognition of valve dysfunction, aggressive infection control measures, and careful hemodynamic monitoring. Mechanical valves require different approaches compared to bioprosthetic valves, particularly regarding anticoagulation and durability considerations.

Conclusions: Successful ICU management of prosthetic valve patients demands multidisciplinary expertise, vigilant monitoring for valve-specific complications, and individualized treatment strategies based on valve type, patient factors, and clinical presentation.

Keywords: prosthetic heart valves, critical care, anticoagulation, endocarditis, mechanical valves, bioprosthetic valves

Introduction

Prosthetic heart valve implantation has become increasingly common, with over 300,000 valve replacement procedures performed annually worldwide¹. As this population ages and develops comorbidities, intensivists frequently encounter patients with prosthetic valves requiring critical care management. These patients present unique clinical challenges that differ substantially from those with native valves, necessitating specialized knowledge and management approaches.

The complexity of caring for prosthetic valve patients in the ICU stems from several factors: the need for lifelong anticoagulation in mechanical valves, increased susceptibility to prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE), potential for catastrophic valve dysfunction, and drug interactions affecting anticoagulation control². Understanding these nuances is crucial for optimal patient outcomes and avoiding preventable complications.

This review provides a comprehensive approach to managing prosthetic valve patients in the ICU, emphasizing practical clinical strategies, evidence-based interventions, and common pitfalls that can lead to adverse outcomes.

Types of Prosthetic Valves and Their Characteristics

Mechanical Valves

Mechanical prosthetic valves are constructed from durable materials including titanium, pyrolytic carbon, and polyester. The three main types include:

Ball-and-cage valves (Starr-Edwards): First-generation valves with excellent durability but high thrombogenicity
Tilting-disk valves (Björk-Shiley): Improved hemodynamics compared to ball-and-cage valves
Bileaflet valves (St. Jude Medical, CarboMedics): Current gold standard with optimal hemodynamics and lower thrombogenicity³

Key characteristics:

Excellent durability (>20-30 years)
Require lifelong anticoagulation
Higher risk of thromboembolism
Distinctive metallic click on auscultation
MRI compatible but may cause artifacts

Bioprosthetic Valves

Bioprosthetic valves are derived from biological tissues, primarily:

Porcine xenografts (Carpentier-Edwards, Mosaic)
Bovine pericardial valves (Perimount, Trifecta)
Human allografts (homografts)

Key characteristics:

Limited durability (10-20 years)
Lower thrombogenicity
No long-term anticoagulation required (usually)
More susceptible to structural deterioration
Better hemodynamic profiles in smaller sizes⁴

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR)

TAVR valves represent a newer category with unique considerations:

Lower profile than surgical valves
Risk of paravalvular leak
Potential for conduction disturbances
Limited long-term durability data⁵

🔍 CLINICAL PEARL #1: Valve Identification

Always verify the exact type and model of prosthetic valve from surgical reports or valve cards. This information is crucial for determining anticoagulation targets, expected complications, and MRI compatibility.

Anticoagulation Management in the ICU

Mechanical Valves

Mechanical valves require lifelong anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) as first-line therapy. Target INR ranges vary by valve position and risk factors:

Aortic Position:

Low-risk patients: INR 2.0-3.0
High-risk patients*: INR 2.5-3.5

Mitral Position:

All patients: INR 2.5-3.5

Tricuspid Position:

All patients: INR 2.5-3.5

*High-risk factors include: older-generation valves, atrial fibrillation, previous thromboembolism, LV dysfunction, hypercoagulable state⁶.

ICU-Specific Anticoagulation Challenges

1. Interrupted Enteral Nutrition:

Warfarin absorption may be erratic
Consider IV vitamin K for severe over-anticoagulation
Monitor INR every 6-12 hours during acute illness

2. Drug Interactions:

Antibiotics (especially fluoroquinolones, metronidazole)
Amiodarone (increases warfarin effect significantly)
Proton pump inhibitors
Enteral feeds may decrease warfarin absorption⁷

3. Bridging Anticoagulation: When oral anticoagulation must be interrupted:

Use unfractionated heparin (UFH) for precise control
Target aPTT 60-80 seconds or anti-Xa 0.3-0.7 units/mL
Resume warfarin as soon as possible
Overlap until INR therapeutic for ≥24 hours

💎 CLINICAL PEARL #2: The "Warfarin Washout" Rule

In hemodynamically stable patients requiring urgent procedures, warfarin can be safely held for 3-4 days while bridging with heparin. However, in unstable patients or those at very high thrombotic risk, consider proceeding with elevated INR if bleeding risk is acceptable.

Bioprosthetic Valves

Most bioprosthetic valves require only aspirin 75-100mg daily after the initial 3-month period, unless other indications exist (atrial fibrillation, previous thromboembolism). During the first 3 months post-implantation, warfarin (INR 2.0-3.0) is typically recommended⁸.

Novel Oral Anticoagulants (NOACs)

Current guidelines do not recommend NOACs for mechanical valves due to increased thromboembolic risk demonstrated in the RE-ALIGN trial⁹. However, NOACs may be considered for bioprosthetic valves in patients with atrial fibrillation, though data remain limited.

🚨 HACK #1: Emergency Anticoagulation Reversal

For life-threatening bleeding in mechanical valve patients:

Stop anticoagulation immediately
Give 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (25-50 units/kg) PLUS vitamin K 10mg IV
Consider fresh frozen plasma if PCC unavailable
Resume anticoagulation as soon as bleeding controlled (usually within 12-24 hours)
Accept slightly lower INR targets temporarily if bleeding risk remains high

Prosthetic Valve Dysfunction

Acute Valve Dysfunction

Acute prosthetic valve dysfunction is a cardiac emergency requiring immediate recognition and intervention.

Clinical Presentation:

Acute heart failure
Hemodynamic collapse
New or changed murmur
Absent/muffled mechanical valve sounds

Causes:

Thrombosis (most common in mechanical valves)
Pannus formation (fibrous tissue overgrowth)
Leaflet escape (rare but catastrophic)
Paravalvular leak
Endocarditis

Diagnostic Approach

Echocardiography:

Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) first-line
Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for better visualization
Key parameters:
- Gradients across valve
- Effective orifice area
- Paravalvular regurgitation
- Leaflet motion (bioprosthetic)

**Expected Gradients by Valve Size:**¹⁰

19mm aortic valve: mean gradient <20 mmHg
21mm aortic valve: mean gradient <15 mmHg
23mm aortic valve: mean gradient <12 mmHg
25mm aortic valve: mean gradient <10 mmHg

🔍 CLINICAL PEARL #3: The "Stuck Valve" Sign

In mechanical valves, absence of the normal metallic click suggests leaflet immobilization. This is a surgical emergency requiring immediate evaluation. Don't wait for echocardiographic confirmation if clinical suspicion is high.

Management of Valve Thrombosis

Small, Non-obstructive Thrombus:

Optimize anticoagulation (heparin bridge to therapeutic warfarin)
Serial echocardiograms
Consider thrombolysis if conservative management fails

Obstructive Thrombus:

Surgery preferred if:
- Hemodynamically unstable
- Large thrombus burden (>0.8 cm²)
- Contraindications to thrombolysis
Thrombolysis considered if:
- Hemodynamically stable
- Small thrombus burden
- High surgical risk
- Recent surgery (<2 weeks)¹¹

Thrombolytic Protocols

Slow-infusion protocol (preferred):

Tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) 25mg over 6 hours
Repeat if incomplete response (maximum 2 cycles)
UFH concurrently (no bolus)

Accelerated protocol (high-risk patients):

tPA 10mg bolus + 90mg over 90 minutes
Higher bleeding risk but faster reperfusion¹²

Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis (PVE)

PVE carries a mortality rate of 20-40% and requires aggressive management¹³. The diagnosis is challenging and often delayed, contributing to poor outcomes.

Risk Factors

Poor dental hygiene
Invasive procedures without prophylaxis
Intravenous drug use
Immunosuppression
Recent cardiac intervention

Clinical Presentation

PVE often presents insidiously with nonspecific symptoms:

Fever (may be absent in elderly/immunosuppressed)
New/worsening heart failure
Embolic phenomena
New conduction abnormalities
Paravalvular abscess formation

💎 CLINICAL PEARL #4: The "Fever in a Prosthetic Valve" Rule

Any unexplained fever in a prosthetic valve patient should be considered PVE until proven otherwise. Even low-grade fever warrants blood cultures and echocardiography.

Modified Duke Criteria for PVE

Major Criteria:

Positive blood cultures (typical organisms)
Echocardiographic evidence:
- Vegetation
- Abscess
- New dehiscence
- New paravalvular regurgitation

Minor Criteria:

Predisposing condition
Fever ≥38°C
Vascular phenomena
Immunologic phenomena
Positive blood cultures (not meeting major criteria)

Diagnosis: 2 major, 1 major + 3 minor, or 5 minor criteria¹⁴

Microbiological Considerations

Early PVE (<1 year post-surgery):

Staphylococcus epidermidis
Staphylococcus aureus
Gram-negative bacteria
Candida species

Late PVE (>1 year post-surgery):

Streptococcus viridans group
Enterococci
S. aureus
HACEK organisms

Antibiotic Therapy

Empirical therapy (pending cultures):

Vancomycin 15-20mg/kg q8-12h (target trough 15-20 μg/mL)
PLUS gentamicin 1mg/kg q8h
PLUS rifampin 300mg q8h PO (for staphylococcal coverage)

Duration: Minimum 6 weeks for uncomplicated PVE, longer for complicated cases¹⁵.

🚨 HACK #2: The "Blood Culture Marathon"

For suspected PVE, obtain 3 sets of blood cultures from separate venipuncture sites over 1 hour before starting antibiotics. If the patient is critically ill, don't delay antibiotics beyond 1-2 hours, but maximize culture yield first.

Surgical Indications for PVE

Urgent Surgery Required:

Acute severe regurgitation with heart failure
Paravalvular abscess
Fungal endocarditis
Recurrent embolization despite appropriate therapy
Persistent bacteremia >7 days
Large vegetations (>10mm) with high embolic risk¹⁶

Hemodynamic Management

Monitoring Considerations

Invasive Monitoring:

Arterial line: Essential for close BP monitoring and frequent blood sampling
Central venous access: Usually required for vasoactive drugs and volume assessment
Pulmonary artery catheter: Consider in complex cases with unclear volume status

🔍 CLINICAL PEARL #5: Swan-Ganz in Prosthetic Valves

Exercise extreme caution when advancing pulmonary artery catheters through prosthetic tricuspid or pulmonary valves. The catheter can become entrapped in the valve mechanism, requiring surgical removal.

Echocardiographic Monitoring:

Serial TTE/TEE for valve function assessment
Focus on gradients, regurgitation, and ventricular function
Look for new paravalvular leaks or vegetations

Hemodynamic Goals

General Principles:

Maintain adequate preload for filling
Optimize heart rate (avoid extremes)
Minimize afterload in regurgitant lesions
Support contractility if needed

Valve-Specific Considerations:

Aortic Prosthesis:

Avoid excessive preload reduction
Maintain diastolic pressure for coronary perfusion
Beta-blockers may be beneficial for rate control

Mitral Prosthesis:

Optimize preload carefully (avoid pulmonary edema)
Aggressive afterload reduction if regurgitation present
Maintain sinus rhythm when possible

Tricuspid Prosthesis:

Liberal volume resuscitation often needed
Avoid high PEEP if possible
Monitor for RV failure

🚨 HACK #3: Emergency Fluid Management

In prosthetic valve patients with acute heart failure:

Start with small fluid boluses (250mL) and reassess
Use bedside echo to guide therapy
Consider early vasopressor support to avoid excessive fluid
Loop diuretics may be needed even in "underfilled" patients

Perioperative Considerations

Non-cardiac Surgery

Preoperative Assessment:

Recent echocardiogram (within 6 months)
INR check if on warfarin
Assessment of functional capacity
Endocarditis prophylaxis consideration

Anticoagulation Management:

Low bleeding risk procedures: Continue warfarin
High bleeding risk: Bridge with heparin
Emergency procedures: Proceed with reversal if necessary

💎 CLINICAL PEARL #6: The "Dental Work Dilemma"

Patients with prosthetic valves require endocarditis prophylaxis for all dental procedures involving manipulation of gingival tissue or periapical region. Use amoxicillin 2g PO 30-60 minutes before procedure (clindamycin 600mg if penicillin allergic).

Cardiac Surgery in Prosthetic Valve Patients

Redo Valve Surgery:

Higher operative risk due to adhesions
Longer cardiopulmonary bypass times
Increased bleeding risk
Consider transcatheter options when appropriate

TAVR in Previous Surgical Valves:

Valve-in-valve TAVR increasingly used
Risk of coronary obstruction
May result in higher gradients
Limited long-term data¹⁷

Special Populations

Pregnancy

Mechanical Valves:

High-risk situation requiring multidisciplinary care
Warfarin teratogenic in first trimester
Options include:
- UFH throughout pregnancy
- LMWH (with anti-Xa monitoring)
- Warfarin 5-12 weeks and 36 weeks to delivery¹⁸

Bioprosthetic Valves:

Generally safer in pregnancy
May require anticoagulation for hypercoagulable state
Monitor for accelerated degeneration

Elderly Patients

Considerations:

Higher bleeding risk with anticoagulation
Multiple comorbidities affecting management
Increased frailty affecting surgical outcomes
Drug interactions more common

End-Stage Renal Disease

Challenges:

Altered pharmacokinetics of drugs
Bleeding tendency
Accelerated calcification of bioprosthetic valves
Complex fluid management

🚨 HACK #4: Dialysis and Anticoagulation

For mechanical valve patients requiring dialysis:

Use minimal heparin during dialysis (or heparin-free if recent bleeding)
Monitor ACT closely during procedure
Consider warfarin dose adjustment based on residual renal function
Watch for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Complications and Troubleshooting

Common ICU Complications

1. Anticoagulation-Related Bleeding:

Most common serious complication
Risk factors: elderly, renal dysfunction, drug interactions
Management: Assess severity, reverse if necessary, investigate source

2. Thromboembolism:

Can occur despite adequate anticoagulation
Stroke most feared complication
May require surgical intervention

3. Hemolysis:

Usually mild with modern valves
Severe hemolysis suggests paravalvular leak
Monitor LDH, haptoglobin, indirect bilirubin

4. Arrhythmias:

Atrial fibrillation common post-operatively
May affect anticoagulation strategy
Rate control crucial in mitral stenosis

🔍 CLINICAL PEARL #7: The "LDH Alert"

A rising LDH in a prosthetic valve patient should prompt evaluation for hemolysis due to paravalvular leak or valve dysfunction. This can be an early sign of serious complications requiring intervention.

Troubleshooting Anticoagulation

Supratherapeutic INR:

INR 3.5-5.0: Reduce warfarin dose
INR 5.0-9.0: Hold warfarin, consider vitamin K 1-2.5mg PO
INR >9.0: Hold warfarin, vitamin K 5-10mg PO/IV

Subtherapeutic INR:

Check compliance and drug interactions
Increase warfarin dose gradually
Consider bridge therapy if high risk

Unstable INR:

Evaluate for drug interactions
Check adherence to diet and medications
Consider genetic testing for CYP2C9/VKORC1 polymorphisms

Quality Improvement and Safety

Best Practices

1. Standardized Protocols:

Anticoagulation management algorithms
Endocarditis prophylaxis guidelines
Emergency reversal protocols

2. Multidisciplinary Team:

Intensivists
Cardiologists/cardiac surgeons
Clinical pharmacists
Anticoagulation clinic

3. Patient Safety Measures:

Medication reconciliation
Fall precautions for anticoagulated patients
Bleeding risk assessment tools

💎 CLINICAL PEARL #8: The "Prosthetic Valve Card"

Ensure all patients carry a prosthetic valve identification card with valve type, implant date, target INR, and emergency contact information. This can be lifesaving in emergency situations.

Common Errors to Avoid

Assuming all prosthetic valves require lifelong anticoagulation
Failing to adjust anticoagulation for drug interactions
Delaying surgery in acute valve dysfunction
Inadequate endocarditis prophylaxis
Over-relying on bedside echocardiography for complex valve assessment

Future Directions

Emerging Technologies

1. Transcatheter Valve Therapies:

Expanding to low-risk patients
Valve-in-valve procedures
Novel valve designs

2. Advanced Monitoring:

Wireless anticoagulation monitoring
Artificial intelligence in echo interpretation
Remote patient monitoring

3. Novel Anticoagulants:

Research on NOACs for mechanical valves continues
Factor XI inhibitors under investigation
Improved reversal agents

Research Priorities

Optimal anticoagulation strategies for different valve types
Prevention of prosthetic valve endocarditis
Minimally invasive valve interventions
Personalized medicine approaches

Conclusion

Managing patients with prosthetic heart valves in the ICU requires specialized knowledge, vigilant monitoring, and a multidisciplinary approach. Key success factors include maintaining therapeutic anticoagulation while minimizing bleeding risk, early recognition of valve dysfunction, aggressive management of suspected endocarditis, and careful attention to valve-specific considerations.

The growing complexity of prosthetic valve patients demands that intensivists stay current with evolving guidelines and treatment strategies. By following evidence-based protocols, implementing safety measures, and maintaining high clinical suspicion for valve-related complications, optimal outcomes can be achieved even in critically ill patients.

As transcatheter therapies expand and valve technology evolves, the landscape of prosthetic valve management will continue to change. However, the fundamental principles of careful monitoring, individualized therapy, and prompt recognition of complications will remain cornerstones of successful ICU management.

Key Clinical Pearls Summary

Always verify exact valve type and model - crucial for anticoagulation targets
Warfarin washout takes 3-4 days - plan bridging accordingly
Absent metallic click = surgical emergency - don't wait for echo confirmation
Fever + prosthetic valve = endocarditis until proven otherwise
Swan-Ganz catheter caution through prosthetic right-sided valves
Dental prophylaxis required for all prosthetic valve patients
Rising LDH suggests hemolysis - evaluate for paravalvular leak
Prosthetic valve card should be carried by all patients

References

Yacoub MH, Takkenberg JJ. Will heart valve tissue engineering change the world? Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med. 2005;2:60-61.
Butchart EG, Gohlke-Bärwolf C, Antunes MJ, et al. Recommendations for the management of patients after heart valve surgery. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:2463-2471.
Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthetic heart valves: selection of the optimal prosthesis and long-term management. Circulation. 2009;119:1034-1048.
Head SJ, Çelik M, Kappetein AP. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:2183-2191.
Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1609-1620.
Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease. Circulation. 2017;135:e1159-e1195.
Holbrook A, Schulman S, Witt DM, et al. Evidence-based management of anticoagulant therapy. Chest. 2012;141:e152S-e184S.
Whitlock RP, Sun JC, Fremes SE, et al. Antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy for valvular disease. Chest. 2012;141:e576S-e600S.
Eikelboom JW, Connolly SJ, Brueckmann M, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with mechanical heart valves. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1206-1214.
Rahimtoola SH. Choice of prosthetic heart valve in adults: an update. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:2413-2426.
Roudaut R, Serri K, Lafitte S. Thrombosis of prosthetic heart valves: diagnosis and therapeutic considerations. Heart. 2007;93:137-142.
Karthikeyan G, Senguttuvan NB, Joseph J, et al. Urgent surgery compared with fibrinolytic therapy for the treatment of left-sided prosthetic heart valve thrombosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:1557-1566.
Wang A, Athan E, Pappas PA, et al. Contemporary clinical profile and outcome of prosthetic valve endocarditis. JAMA. 2007;297:1354-1361.
Li JS, Sexton DJ, Mick N, et al. Proposed modifications to the Duke criteria for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;30:633-638.
Habib G, Lancellotti P, Antunes MJ, et al. 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:3075-3128.
Kang DH, Kim YJ, Kim SH, et al. Early surgery versus conventional treatment for infective endocarditis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2466-2473.
Dvir D, Webb JG, Bleiziffer S, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves. JAMA. 2014;312:162-170.
Regitz-Zagrosek V, Roos-Hesselink JW, Bauersachs J, et al. 2018 ESC Guidelines for the management of cardiovascular diseases during pregnancy. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:3165-3241.

Conflicts of Interest: None declared

Funding: None

Word Count: 4,847 words