JOURNAL ARTICLE

Machine learning methods to improve bedside fluid responsiveness prediction in severe sepsis or septic shock: an observational study

BenoƮt Bataille, Jade de Selle, Pierre-Etienne Moussot, Philippe Marty, Stein Silva, Pierre Cocquet
British Journal of Anaesthesia 2021 January 15
33461735

BACKGROUND: Passive leg raising (PLR) predicts fluid responsiveness in critical illness, although restrictions in mobilising patients often preclude this haemodynamic challenge being used. We investigated whether machine learning applied on transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) data might be used as a tool for predicting fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients.

METHODS: We studied, 100 critically ill patients (mean age: 62 yr [standard deviation: 14]) with severe sepsis or septic shock prospectively over 24 months. Transthoracic echocardiography measurements were performed at baseline, after PLR, and before and after a standardised fluid challenge in learning and test populations (n=50 patients each). A 15% increase in stroke volume defined fluid responsiveness. The machine learning methods used were classification and regression tree (CART), partial least-squares regression (PLS), neural network (NNET), and linear discriminant analysis (LDA). Each method was applied offline to determine whether fluid responsiveness may be predicted from left and right cardiac ventricular physiological changes detected by cardiac ultrasound. Predictive values for fluid responsiveness were compared by receiver operating characteristics (area under the curve [AUC]; mean [95% confidence intervals]).

RESULTS: In the learning sample, the AUC values were PLR 0.76 (0.62-0.89), CART 0.83 (0.73-0.94), PLS 0.97 (0.93-1), NNET 0.93 (0.85-1), and LDA 0.90 (0.81-0.98). In the test sample, the AUC values were PLR 0.77 (0.64-0.91), CART 0.68 (0.54-0.81), PLS 0.83 (0.71-0.96), NNET 0.83 (0.71-0.94), and LDA 0.85 (0.74-0.96) respectively. The PLS model identified inferior vena cava collapsibility, velocity-time integral, S-wave, E/Ea ratio, and E-wave as key echocardiographic parameters.

CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning generated several models for predicting fluid responsiveness that were comparable with the haemodynamic response to PLR.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
33461735
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"