LAUSR

Volume responsiveness can be evaluated by tilting maneuvers such as head‐down tilt (HDT) and passive leg raising (PLR), but the two procedures use different references (HDT the supine position; PLR the semi‐recumbent position). We tested whether the two procedures identify “normovolemia” by evaluating the stroke volume (SV) and cardiac output (CO) responses and whether the peripheral perfusion index (PPI) derived from pulse oximetry provides similar information. In randomized order, 10 healthy men were exposed to both HDT and PLR, and evaluations were made also when the subjects fasted. Central cardiovascular variables were derived by pulse contour analysis and changes in central blood volume assessed by thoracic electrical admittance (TEA). During HDT, SV remained stable (fasted 110 ± 16 vs. 109 ± 16 ml; control 113 ± 16 vs. 111 ± 16 ml, p > 0.05) with no change in CO, TEA, PPI, or SV variation (SVV). In contrast during PLR, SV increased (fasted 108 ± 17 vs. 117 ± 17 ml; control 108 ± 18 vs. 117 ± 18 ml, p < 0.05) followed by an increase in TEA (p < 0.05) and CO increased when subjects fasted (6.7 ± 1.5 vs. 7.1 ± 1.5, p = 0.007) with no change in PPI or SVV. In conclusion, SV has a maximal value for rest in supine men, while PLR restores SV as CBV is reduced in a semi‐recumbent position and the procedure thereby makes healthy volunteers seem fluid responsive.