Inferior vena cava ultrasound versus passive leg raising test in guiding fluid administration in surgical patients prior to spinal anaesthesia: a post-hoc analysis of the ProCRHYSA randomized trial ===================================================================================================================================================================================================== * Samuele Ceruti * Andrea Glotta * Mathieu Favre * Edoardo Tasciotti * Giovanni Bona * Antonietta Petrusic * Alain Borgeat * José Aguirre * Andrea Saporito ## ABSTRACT **Background** Spinal anaesthesia is commonly used for many surgical procedures. One of its potential complications is arterial hypotension, which is nowadays prevented by an empirical fluid administration without any hemodynamic status assessment. However, this practice could increase the risk of volume overload in cardiovascular high-risk patients. Two non-invasive tests are performed to identify fluid-responsiveness: the Inferior Vena Cava Ultrasound (IVCUS) and the Passive Leg Raising Test (PLRT). Aim of this post-hoc analysis was to compare these two methods in spontaneous-breathing patients to assess fluid responsiveness before spinal anaesthesia. Primary outcome was to analyze the incidence of arterial hypotension after spinal anaesthesia in elective surgery patients. Secondary endpoints compared the total fluids amount, the vasoactive drugs administered and the time needed to accomplish the whole procedure in both groups. **Results** The patients analyzed were 132 in the IVCUS group and 148 in the PLRT group; 39.6% of all patients developed arterial hypotension after spinal anaesthesia, 34.8% in the IVCUS group and 43.9% in the PLRT group (Chi-square 2.39, df = 1, p = 0.77). The mean total fluids amount was 794 ± 592 ml; 925 ± 631 ml for IVCUS group and 678 ± 529 ml for PLRT group (p < 0.001). Patients needed vasoactive drugs to restore normal arterial pressure were 18.2% of total, 15% in the IVCUS group and 20% in the PLRT group (p = 0.136). The mean time required to complete the entire procedure was 52 ± 18 min, 48 ± 10 min in the IVCUS group and 56 ± 13 min in the PLRT group (p < 0.001). Complications or out of protocol treatment were registered in 4.6% patients. **Conclusions** Fluid responsiveness assessment in spontaneous breathing patients before spinal anaesthesia could potentially prevent the risk of post-spinal hypotension. In elective surgery, IVCUS could be an accurate method to guide fluid administration in patients undergoing spinal anaesthesia, reducing the incidence of post-spinal hypotension when compared to PLRT. KEYWORDS * Fluid therapy * Hypotension * Inferior Vena Cava * Spinal Anaesthesia * Ultrasonography ## INTRODUCTION Spinal anaesthesia is commonly used for a wide range of surgical procedures [1]. Despite its routine use, it remains a technique burdened by potentially severe complications, especially arterial hypotension [2–8]. Subarachnoid administration of local anaesthetics blocks the autonomous nervous system controlling vascular tone [4,6], potentially leading to a sudden decrease in peripheral vascular resistances which may result in arterial hypotension, further aggravated by a relative hypovolemia [2,7–11]. Transient hypotensive episodes are generally well tolerated in patients without severe comorbidities, due to cardiovascular compensatory mechanism [11,12]. However, these events may lead to major complications in emergency situations and in cardiovascular high-risk patients [5,10]; patients older than 65 years [2,13] as well as with an ongoing drugs therapy such as beta-blockers [2], angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibitors [14] presented an increased risk of developing a severe hypotensive response after spinal anaesthesia. The induced reduction in both cardiac output and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) are the main causes of the hypotension. Furthermore, Monk et al. observed how a significant intra-operatory hypotension is associated with a greater mortality in the 30 days following surgery [15]. Spinal anaesthesia related mortality may thus be currently still underestimated. In common clinical practice, post-spinal hypotension is usually prevented by an empirical fluid administration [3–5,10,16], without a routine evaluation of patient’s hemodynamic status. However, this practice brings an intrinsic risk of volume overload, which may be counterproductive in some high-risk subjects, as mentioned above [5,16,17]. In this setting, two main non-invasive tests have been developed to identify fluid-responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients: the Inferior Vena Cava Ultrasound (IVCUS) and Passive Leg Raising Test (PLRT) [18,19]. Nowadays ultrasound evaluation, especially cardiac ultrasonography, has become widely used in the clinical practice and in 2013 the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) published a consensus suggesting the use of *Point of Care UltraSound* (POCUS) as adjunctive therapeutic aid at patients’ bedside [20]. Following these recommendations, the use of POCUS is progressively increasing in the preoperative setting to identify and prevent complication before spinal or general anaesthesia [21–23]. The IVCUS consists in a measurement of the IVC diameter variation by M-mode ultrasound analysis during spontaneous breathing activity [24,25]; regarding this technique, while recent data in the non-critical patients population are encouraging [26,27], there are contrasting results in critically ill patients, for whom the method had originally being validated [18,25,26,28–32]. The PLRT consists in passively raising the patient’s legs to increase venous return and therefore cardiac output [19]; potential fluid responsiveness can consequently be assessed by measuring changes in stroke volume (SV) with echocardiography or other non-invasive methods, like etCO2 [16,19,33,34]. PLRT has been identified as a test for predicting fluid responsiveness in spontaneous breathing patients [35], and it has been recommended by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) as a potential non-invasive method to analyze fluid-responsiveness in critically ill patients [36]. We have previously published the protocol of the *ProCRHYSA trial* [37], aiming at determining whether these two methods (IVCUS and PLRT) are effective in guiding fluid therapy to reduce both the hypotension rate and the amount of volume needed in non-critical patients undergoing elective spinal anaesthesia for surgical procedures. We previously concluded that IVCUS resulted a valid method to significantly reduce the post-anaesthesia hypotension rate in comparison to the standard of care, through the identification of those patients who are eligible for fluid replacement [37]. Some studies have identified the PLRT as the preferred method for fluid-responsive identification in spontaneous-breathing patients [27,35,38]; however, the aforementioned ProCRHYSA trial indirectly suggested a relatively little benefit of PLRT use in comparison to standard of care [39]. The main objective of this study is the comparison between these two non-invasive techniques to determine fluid-responsiveness in the context of preoperative spinal anaesthesia. ## MATERIAL AND METHODS ### 1. Study design and enrollment criteria The analyses of this project are based on the data collected in the ProCRHYSA trial [37], which was a prospective, controlled, randomized monocentric clinical trial including consecutive pre-operative patients receiving elective spinal anaesthesia, treated according to current clinical practice or with optimized fluid-responsiveness status assessment according to IVCUS o PLRT methods [37]. The trial was performed in a tertiary care hospital (Bellinzona Regional Hospital - ORBV, Service of Anaesthesia, Bellinzona) in Switzerland. Inclusion criteria were adult patients of both sexes, with an anaesthesia risk score I to III on the basis of the American Society of Anaesthesiology (ASA) scoring system [40], undergoing an elective surgical intervention under spinal anaesthesia. Exclusion criteria were the need of invasive blood pressure monitoring, any condition determining a pre-procedural arterial hypotension, patients with unilateral anaesthetic block, patients needing any form of assisted ventilation prior or during the surgical intervention and those unable to give informed consent [37] (Table 1). View this table: [TABLE 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/25/2023.05.22.23290367/T1) TABLE 1: inclusion and exclusion criteria The CONSORT reporting guidelines has been used throughout the entire trial [41] (SM 1); all clinical and pharmacological data were registered and collected in a codified electronic database by an anaesthesiologist not directly involved in patient management. ### 2. Clinical trial conduction The study started upon patient’s arrival in the operating room (time 0) and ended 30 minutes after completion of spinal anaesthesia. It was divided in the *pre-anaesthetic phase* from time 0 to the beginning of spinal anaesthesia, in the *anaesthetic phase* corresponding to the performance of spinal anaesthesia, and in the *post-anaesthetic phase* from the end of anaesthesia to the following 30 minutes. Spinal anaesthesia was performed following a standardized procedure, with intrathecal administration of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5%, with dosing according to surgical procedure and patient’s body structure, at L3-L4 level in the lateral decubitus position, using a 27G pencil point cranially orientated spinal needle (BBraun Medical SA, Melsungen, Germany). After the injection patients rested supine during 30 minutes before surgery. A nurse not involved in the trial and blind to groups allocation was assigned to assess the sensory block extension with cold test for a TH8-TH6 targeted level block [39]. Arterial hypotension was previously defined as two measurements of systolic arterial pressure inferior to 90 mmHg, a mean arterial pressure (MAP) inferior to 60 mmHg [27,39], any fall in systolic blood pressure more than 50 mmHg or more than 25% from baseline, a reduction in mean arterial pressure of more than 30% from baseline and/or clinical signs and symptoms of inadequate perfusion [27,37]. After spinal anaesthesia, hypotensive patients were treated according to a standard protocol with crystalloid replacement and vasoactive drugs (e.g. ephedrine, phenylephrine or atropine depending on the clinical status and in agreement with the anaesthesiologist’s evaluation), until haemodynamic stability was accomplished and all clinical criteria for arterial hypotension were solved. #### 2.1 IVCUS group Patients allocated in this group underwent IVCUS-based fluid status assessment before spinal anaesthesia. According to the protocol, an *IVC collapsibility index* (IVC-CI) greater than 36% was chosen as cut-off [24–26,37,39,42]; the index was measured in the IVC intra-abdominal portion (2 cm from the right atrium) through a subcostal view and was calculated as (IVCmax-IVCmin)/IVCmax, with the diameters being registered in spontaneous breathing activity for 30 seconds. An infusion of 500 ml of crystalloid for 20 minutes was considered adequate and safe, although no published consensus regarding this matter exists [16]. Patient’s haemodynamic status was re-assessed after each refilling: patients with an IVC-CI greater than 36% were identified as *responsive patients*: crystalloid fluids were therefore administered, followed by IVCUS reassessment; otherwise, they were considered as *unresponsive patients* and directly underwent spinal anaesthesia. #### 2.2 PLRT group Patients in this group underwent PLRT prior to spinal anaesthesia. Active leg elevation exerts an orthosympathetic reflex that can increase cardiac output; passive lower limb test had the advantage of mobilizing lower limb venous blood (about 300-500 ml) without activating the orthosympathetic reflex, making it possible to quantify the clinical response after a bolus of fluids [37]. Before the test, patients waited 5 minutes in a semi-recumbent supine position at 45°, to reach a phase of hemodynamic and respiratory balance and general stability, as well as to reduce anxiety and stress. The etCO2 measurement with continuous CO2 sampling through nasal cannula was performed before and after PLRT, while patients kept a semi-recumbent position at 45°. Patients with an etCO2 increase of more than 12% from baseline were classified as *responsive* [11], otherwise they were classified as *unresponsive* to fluid administration. Responsive patients received fluids according to the same protocol described for the IVCUS group and were reassessed after each fluid administration through the same PLRT. Spinal anaesthesia was performed once *unresponsiveness* to fluid administration was reached. Follow-up was identical compared with the previous group. ### 3. Outcomes In this post-hoc analysis of ProCRHYSA trial, the primary endpoint was to report and compare the post-spinal anaesthesia hypotension rate both in the IVCUS group and in the PLRT group. Secondary endpoints were a comparison about total fluids amount (further stratified according to pre/post-anaesthesia stage), about the amount of vasoactive drug use in both groups and about the time needed to accomplish the whole procedure, since the beginning of the pre-anaesthesia phase until the end of the post-anaesthesia phase (further stratified according to pre/post-anaesthesia stage). ### 4. Statistical analysis Sample size calculation and randomization were described in the original trial [37]. Descriptive statistic was performed to summarize the clinical collected data. According to data distribution, verified by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and Shapiro–Wilk test, were presented as mean ± SD or median (IQR, min-max) for continuous variables and as absolute number (percentage) for categorical variables. Differences between patients’ outcomes were studied by *t-test* for independent groups or by *Mann-Whitney test* if non-parametric analysis was required. Similarly, comparison of clinical evolution over time was performed by t*-paired test* or by non-parametric *Wilcoxon test*, depending on data distribution. Study of differences between groups of categorical data was carried out by *Chi-square* statistics. All Confidence Intervals (CI) were established at 95%; significance level was established to be < 0.05. Statistical data analysis was performed using the SPSS 26.0 package (SPSS Inc, USA). ### 5. Ethics considerations The study has been approved by the Ethics Committees (Ref. Cantonal Ethics Committee n. CE2796, international registration number [NCT02070276](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT02070276&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F25%2F2023.05.22.23290367.atom)); written informed consent was obtained from patients prior to randomization. There was no funding source for this study. ## RESULTS ### Baseline characteristics During the study period of the ProCRHYSA trial (3 arms, randomized, parallel group trial), from May 2014 to February 2019, 447 consecutive patients were enrolled and randomized into the tree arms. In this post-hoc analysis, patients enrolled and randomized into the IVCUS and PLRT arms were directly compared (Figure 1); a total of 298 patients (149 for each arm) were recruited, 17 and 1 patients respectively in the IVCUS and PLRT group were subsequently excluded for troubles related to the correct acquisition of the required measures (namely poor ultrasonographic window and intolerance to nasal cannula for etCO2 measurement). Therefore, data from 132 patients in the IVCUS group and 148 patients in PLRT group were analyzed (Figure 1). The mean age resulted 56 ± 12 years; 173 (61.7%) patients were men, 244 (87.1%) were classified as ASA I-II and 36 (12.8%) as ASA III. Seventy-five patients (26.8%) resulted on an antihypertensive treatment (14.3% on beta-blockers, 10.7% on ACE-inhibitors, 11.1% on other drugs) and 6.4% were on psychotropic drugs (4.3% on antidepressants, 2.1% on SSRI, while no patients were on MAO-I); pre-anaesthesia hemodynamic data were also compared for blood pressure (p = 0.121), heart rate (p = 0.533) and SpO2 (p = 0.04). Clinical data and demographic characteristics of both groups are reported in Table 2. ![FIGURE 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/05/25/2023.05.22.23290367/F1.medium.gif) [FIGURE 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/25/2023.05.22.23290367/F1) FIGURE 1: Study flow chart Flow chart according to CONSORT of the primary study from which the post-hoc analysis was carried out, involving the ultrasound (arm B) and PLRT (arm C) groups. View this table: [TABLE 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/25/2023.05.22.23290367/T2) TABLE 2: baseline characteristics ### Primary endpoint After spinal anaesthesia, 111 (39.6%) of all patients developed arterial hypotension; the hypotension rate resulted 34.8% (46 patients) in the IVCUS group and 43.9% (65 patients) in the PLRT group (Chi-square 2.39, df = 1, p = 0.77); the odds ratio (OR) for patients pre-treated according to IVCUS test compared to PLRT was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.42 – 1.10, p = 0.12). According to these data, the Bayesian posterior predicting model suggested a probability to develop post-spinal arterial hypotension after IVCUS analysis equal to 34.8%; the same probability increased up to 44.6% when patients were analyzed and managed according to PLRT results. ### Secondary endpoints Regarding fluid administration, all patients were treated by Ringerfundin (B. Braun); the mean total fluid amount was 794 ± 592 ml (Table 3), 925 ± 631 ml for the IVCUS group and 678 ± 529 ml for the PLRT group (p < 0.001, Figure 2). The mean fluid amount given during *pre-anaesthesia phase* was 335 ± 314 ml in the IVCUS group, compared to 169 ± 237 ml in the PLRT group (p < 0.001, Figure 3), while the post-anaesthesia fluid amount resulted identical in both groups (589 ± 370 ml in IVCUS group vs 510 ± 368 in PLRT group, p = 0.075). ![FIGURE 2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/05/25/2023.05.22.23290367/F2.medium.gif) [FIGURE 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/25/2023.05.22.23290367/F2) FIGURE 2: Total fluid amount Total fluid amount administered to all patients, stratified according to IVCUS and PLRT method; 925 ± 631 ml for IVCUS group and 678 ± 529 ml for PLRT group (p < 0.001). ![FIGURE 3:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/05/25/2023.05.22.23290367/F3.medium.gif) [FIGURE 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/25/2023.05.22.23290367/F3) FIGURE 3: Pre/post-fluid amount distribution Fluid administration in IVCUS and PLRT group according to pre/post-anaesthesia phase; 335 ± 314 ml in the IVCUS group compared to 169 ± 237 ml in the PLRT group (p < 0.001) in the pre-anaesthesia phase; 589 ± 370 ml in IVCUS group and 510 ± 368 in PLRT group (p = 0.075) during the post-anaesthesia phase. View this table: [TABLE 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/25/2023.05.22.23290367/T3) TABLE 3: Primary and secondary endpoints A total of 51 patients (18.2%) required vasoactive support to restore normal arterial pressure, 20 patients (15%) in the IVCUS group and 31 (20%) in the PLRT group (p = 0.136); ephedrine was the drug more used (13.6% in the IVCUS group and 19.6% in the PLRT group, p = 0.094, Table 3). The mean time required to complete the entire procedure was 52 ± 18 min in all patients, 48 ± 10 min in the IVCUS group and 56 ± 13 min in the PLRT group (p < 0.001, Figure 4). Finally, deviation from protocol were detected in 13 (4,6%) cases and led to a drop-out; 2 patients (0.7 %) were given prilocaine for spinal anaesthesia, while 3 patients (1%) developed selective block. ![FIGURE 4:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/05/25/2023.05.22.23290367/F4.medium.gif) [FIGURE 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/25/2023.05.22.23290367/F4) FIGURE 4: Total time anaesthesia Total time anaesthesia stratified according to method used for fluid responsiveness assessment; the PLRT group (56 ± 13 min) resulted more time-consuming compared to IVCUS group (48 ± 10 min; p < 0.001). ## DISCUSSION In critical setting, non-invasive methods to evaluate patients’ volemic status have been of interest during recent years [17]. Fluid responsiveness assessment in spontaneous breathing patients prior to spinal anaesthesia could potentially prevent spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension, thus ameliorating patients’ outcome [18,19,24,26–32]. PLRT has hitherto been the method of choice in this setting, although literature in favor of IVCUS appears to become more common [23,33,34]. No definite superiority of one method over the other has however been assessed so far. In our post-hoc analysis of the ProCRHYSA trial, the rate of post-spinal arterial hypotension was lower in the IVCUS group in comparison to the PLRT group, even though it resulted in a trend that did not reach statistical significance. This can be in part due to the design of the post-hoc analysis itself, for which a specific power analysis was not performed. Nonetheless, the suggested reduction in the relative risk of post-spinal hypotension through IVC ultrasound instead of PLRT, a test often considered as “standard procedure” in spontaneous-breathing patients, could still influence the every-day practice. Moreover, the analysis of fluid management also resulted of relevant interest. The IVCUS group received an increased fluid amount before anaesthesia compared to the PLRT group; this fluid administration was not indiscriminate to all IVCUS group patients, but tailored instead to each patient’s haemodynamic status as resulted from the IVCUS assessment. This tailored fluid administration allowed to achieve less arterial hypotension, avoiding at the same time possibly dangerous fluid overload. Although the ProCRHYSA trial was reserved for ASA I-III patients, a similar protocol could in the future be applied to more fragile and unstable patients, given the capability to avoid dangerous fluid overload deriving from this method. This data, associated with a trend towards greater use of amines in the PLRT group, could further suggest a greater efficacy of IVCUS compared to PLRT, even if future validation studies concerning the implementation of portable ultrasound in pre-spinal anaesthesia setting will clarify the role of POCUS in this specific regard. To date, POCUS applications is rapidly expanding to many clinical fields, included peri-operative medicine; according to recent *World Health Organization* recommendations, it represents one of the 5 priorities to be developed in the field of Critical Care during the next years [43]. The measurement of IVC diameter through the subcostal window is an easy to learn, safe and non-invasive method [44,45]. If routinely applied to fragile patients with cardiovascular comorbidities before anaesthesia, it could not only detect hypovolemic patients benefitting from a pre-procedural volemic repletion, but also guide the titration of fluid therapy, avoiding empiric fluid challenges and the subsequent risk of volume overload and potential heart failure in subjects with a reduced cardiovascular compliance. IVCUS should thus be increasingly considered by anaesthesiologists as a POCUS tool for pre-operative assessment and optimization. The PLRT method resulted more time-consuming; this aspect may have significant implication, if this test has to be considered for a routine application to high-turnover surgical unit, where anaesthesia-controlled time represents an important part of the total turnover time [46,47]. Although Teboul JL et colleagues identified PLRT as the method of choice in order to predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneous breathing patients [35], others studies draw different conclusions and circumscribe the possible applications of this test. Monnet X. and colleagues [48] state that the high diagnostic sensitivity of PLRT remains confined to the critical care setting, where it should be used in the context of a more global cardiovascular assessment and where a direct measurement of cardiac output can also be performed. In the ProCRHYSA trial, the use of PLRT was not associated to a reduction of the incidence of post-spinal anaesthesia hypotensive episodes compared to the standard method [39]. This analysis presents some limitations. First, it was a post-hoc analysis for which a pre-trial power analysis has not been performed; the limitation of the results’ significance can be mainly due to the study design, and necessarily requires the execution of future studies with greater statistical power to confirm the statistical trend suggested. Moreover, additional studies are also needed to assess whether IVCUS can be implemented to prevent excessive fluid overload in more fragile patients undergoing anaesthesia (i.e. ASA IV-V patients). The addressing of this specific patients’ group demands however a new specifically designed, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Additional limitations are the same discussed in the ProCRHYSA study [49], especially the impossibility to blind patients to the group allocation, the exclusive involvement of ASA I-III patients and the ultrasound operator-dependency intrinsic to ultrasound evaluations. ## CONCLUSION Fluid responsiveness assessment in spontaneous breathing patients prior to spinal anaesthesia could potentially prevent post-spinal hypotension, thus ameliorating patients’ outcome; PLRT has hitherto been the method of choice in this setting. In our post-hoc analysis we reported that IVCUS, as a method to guide fluid administration in patients undergoing spinal anaesthesia prior to elective surgery, enables to reduce the incidence of post-spinal hypotension when compared to PLRT. Further studies with greater statistical power are required to determine if the trend shown in our study is confirmed. In this scenario, identifying further ways to implement POCUS in the daily practice could allow ever better patient-tailored approach and management. ## Supporting information Supplemental Material Consort Check List [[supplements/290367_file07.docx]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. ## DECLARATION ### Ethics approval and consent to participate The study has been approved by the Ethics Committees (Ref. Cantonal Ethics Committee n. CE2796, international registration number [NCT02070276](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT02070276&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F25%2F2023.05.22.23290367.atom)); written informed consent was obtained from patients prior to randomization. ### Consent for publication Not applicable ### Availability of data and material The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. ### Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests related to this study. ### Funding No funding was obtained for this study. ### Authors’ contributions SC conceived the study, designed and coordinated the protocol and recruited patients, furthermore he drafted the manuscript and performed the statistical analysis, AG drafted the manuscript and performed the statistical analysis, MF participated in the design of the study, performed the statistical analysis and drafted the manuscript, ET participated in the draft of the manuscript, GB participated in the statistical analysis and drafted the manuscript, AP participated in the design of the study, performed the statistical analysis and drafted the manuscript, AB performed the statistical analysis and drafted the manuscript, JA participated in the design of the study, performed the statistical analysis and drafted the manuscript, AS participated in the design of the study, coordinated the protocol recruited patients, furthermore he drafted the manuscript and performed the statistical analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. ## Footnotes * **Clinical Trial Registration:** International Trial number [NCT02070276](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT02070276&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F25%2F2023.05.22.23290367.atom) ([http://www.clinicaltrials.gov](http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)) ## LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACE-Inhibitors : Angiotensin-converting enzyme ASA : American Society of Anesthesiologists CI : Confidence Interval ESICM : European Society Intensive Care Medicine etCO2 : End-tidal carbon dioxide IMAO : Monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) IQR : Interquartile Range IVC : Inferior Vena Cava IVC-CI : IVC Collapsability Index IVCUS : Inferior Vena Cava Ultrasound MAP : Mean Arterial Pressure PLRT : Passive Leg Raise Test POCUS : point-of-care ultrasound ProCRHYSA : PROtocolized Care to Reduce HYpotension after Spinal Anaesthesia SA : Spinal Anestesia SSRI : Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors SVR : systemic vascular resistance * Received May 22, 2023. * Revision received May 22, 2023. * Accepted May 25, 2023. * © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission. ## REFERENCES 1. 1.Mordecai MM, Brull SJ. Spinal anesthesia. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol [Internet]. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2005 [cited 2020 Sep 28];18:527–33. Available from: [http://journals.lww.com/00001503-200510000-00014](http://journals.lww.com/00001503-200510000-00014) 2. 2.Carpenter RL, Caplan RA, Brown DL, Stephenson C, Wu R. Incidence and risk factors for side effects of spinal anesthesia. Anesthesiology [Internet]. Anesthesiology; 1992 [cited 2020 Sep 28];76:906–16. Available from: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1599111/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1599111/) [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00000542-199209001-00906&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=1599111&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F25%2F2023.05.22.23290367.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1992HY13700006&link_type=ISI) 3. 3.Jabalameli M, Hashemi J, Soleimani B, Soltani H, Behdad S. Prevention of post-spinal hypotension using crystalloid, colloid and ephedrine with three different combinations: A double blind randomized study. Adv Biomed Res [Internet]. Medknow; 2012 [cited 2020 Sep 28];1:36. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC3544136/?report=abstract 4. 4.Xu SQ, Wu HB, Zhao QS, Shen XF, Guo XR, Wang FZ. The Median Effective Volume of Crystalloid in Preventing Hypotension in Patients Undergoing Cesarean Delivery with Spinal Anesthesia. Rev Bras Anestesiol. Elsevier; 2012;62:312–24. 5. 5.Buggy DJ, Power CK, Meeke R, O’Callaghan S, Moran C, O’Brien GT. Prevention of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension in the elderly: i.m. methoxamine or combined hetastarch and crystalloid. Br J Anaesth [Internet]. Oxford University Press; 1998 [cited 2020 Sep 28];80:199–203. Available from: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9602585/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9602585/) 6. 6.Hanss R, Bein B, Weseloh H, Bauer M, Cavus E, Steinfath M, et al. Heart rate variability predicts severe hypotension after spinal anesthesia. Anesthesiology [Internet]. American Society of Anesthesiologists; 2006 [cited 2020 Sep 28]. p. 537–45. Available from: [http://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article-pdf/104/3/537/361173/0000542-200603000-00022.pdf](http://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article-pdf/104/3/537/361173/0000542-200603000-00022.pdf) 7. 7.Hartmann B, Junger A, Klasen J, Benson M, Jost A, Banzhaf A, et al. The incidence and risk factors for hypotension after spinal anesthesia induction: An analysis with automated data collection. Anesth Analg [Internet]. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2002 [cited 2020 Sep 28];94:1521–9. Available from: [http://journals.lww.com/00000539-200206000-00027](http://journals.lww.com/00000539-200206000-00027) 8. 8.Liu SS, McDonald SB. Current issues in spinal anesthesia [Internet]. Anesthesiology. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2001 [cited 2020 Sep 28]. p. 888–906. Available from: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11388543/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11388543/) 9. 9.Kim HJ, Kim JS. A cardiovascular collapse following vigorous cough during spinal anesthesia [Internet]. Korean J. Anesthesiol. Korean Society of Anesthesiologists; 2014 [cited 2020 Sep 28]. p. S49. Available from: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3903858/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3903858/) 10. 10.Nakasuji M, Suh SH, Nomura M, Nakamura M, Imanaka N, Tanaka M, et al. Hypotension from spinal anesthesia in patients aged greater than 80 years is due to a decrease in systemic vascular resistance. J Clin Anesth. Elsevier; 2012;24:201–6. 11. 11.Salinas F V., Sueda LA, Liu SS. Physiology of spinal anaesthesia and practical suggestions for successful spinal anaesthesia [Internet]. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Anaesthesiol. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol; 2003 [cited 2020 Sep 28]. p. 289–303. Available from: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14529003/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14529003/) 12. 12.Doherty M, Buggy DJ. Intraoperative fluids: How much is too much? [Internet]. Br. J. Anaesth. Oxford University Press; 2012 [cited 2020 Sep 28]. p. 69–79. Available from: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22661747/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22661747/) 13. 13.Park S. Prediction of hypotension in spinal anesthesia [Internet]. Korean J. Anesthesiol. Korean Society of Anesthesiologists; 2013 [cited 2020 Sep 28]. p. 291–2. Available from: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3822018/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3822018/) 14. 14.Shin HJ, Choi ES, Lee GW, Do SH. Effects of Preoperative Serotonin-Receptor-Antagonist Administration in Spinal Anesthesia-Induced Hypotension: A Randomized, Double-blind Comparison Study of Ramosetron and Ondansetron. Reg Anesth Pain Med [Internet]. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2015 [cited 2020 Sep 28]. p. 583–8. Available from: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26263075/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26263075/) 15. 15.Monk TG, Bronsert MR, Henderson WG, Mangione MP, Sum-Ping STJ, Bentt DR, et al. Association between intraoperative hypotension and hypertension and 30-day postoperative mortality in noncardiac surgery [Internet]. Anesthesiology. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2015 [cited 2021 Apr 27]. p. 307–19. Available from: [http://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article-pdf/123/2/307/267446/20150800\_0-00016.pdf](http://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article-pdf/123/2/307/267446/20150800_0-00016.pdf) 16. 16.Cherpanath TGV, Geerts BF, Lagrand WK, Schultz MJ, Groeneveld ABJ. Basic concepts of fluid responsiveness. Netherlands Hear J. 2013;21:530–6. 17. 17.Pinsky MR, Payen D. Functional hemodynamic monitoring [Internet]. Crit. Care. Crit Care; 2005 [cited 2020 Sep 28]. p. 566–72. Available from: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16356240/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16356240/) 18. 18.Lamia B, Ochagavia A, Monnet X, Chemla D, Richard C, Teboul JL. Echocardiographic prediction of volume responsiveness in critically ill patients with spontaneously breathing activity. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33:1125–32. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00134-007-0646-7&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17508199&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F25%2F2023.05.22.23290367.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000248002000004&link_type=ISI) 19. 19. Monge García MI, Cano AG, Romero MG, Pintado RM, Madueño VP, Díaz Monrové JC. Non-invasive assessment of fluid responsiveness by changes in partial end-tidal CO 2 pressure during a passive leg-raising maneuver. Ann Intensive Care [Internet]. Springer; 2012 [cited 2020 Sep 28];2:2–9. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC3327636/ 20. 20.Spencer KT, Kimura BJ, Korcarz CE, Pellikka PA, Rahko PS, Siegel RJ. Focused cardiac ultrasound: Recommendations from the american society of echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2021 Apr 30];26:567–81. Available from: [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2013.04.001](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2013.04.001) 21. 21.Haskins SC, Tanaka CY, Boublik J, Wu CL, Sloth E. Focused Cardiac Ultrasound for the Regional Anesthesiologist and Pain Specialist. Reg Anesth Pain Med [Internet]. 2017;42:632–44. Available from: [https://rapm.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1097/AAP.0000000000000650](https://rapm.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1097/AAP.0000000000000650) 22. 22.Coker BJ, Zimmerman JM. Why Anesthesiologists Must Incorporate Focused Cardiac Ultrasound into Daily Practice [Internet]. Anesth. Analg. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2017 [cited 2021 Apr 30]. p. 761–5. Available from: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28207446/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28207446/) 23. 23.Gillman LM, Kirkpatrick AW. Portable bedside ultrasound: The visual stethoscope of the 21 stcentury [Internet]. Scand. J. Trauma. Resusc. Emerg. Med. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med; 2012 [cited 2021 Apr 30]. Available from: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22400903/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22400903/) 24. 24.Barbier C, Loubières Y, Schmit C, Hayon J, Ricôme JL, Jardin F, et al. Respiratory changes in inferior vena cava diameter are helpful in predicting fluid responsiveness in ventilated septic patients. Intensive Care Med [Internet]. Intensive Care Med; 2004 [cited 2020 Sep 28];30:1740–6. Available from: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15034650/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15034650/) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15034650&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F25%2F2023.05.22.23290367.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000225104900008&link_type=ISI) 25. 25.Zhang Z, Xu X, Ye S, Xu L. Ultrasonographic measurement of the respiratory variation in the inferior vena cava diameter is predictive of fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis [Internet]. Ultrasound Med. Biol. Elsevier USA; 2014 [cited 2020 Sep 28]. p. 845–53. Available from: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK208470/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK208470/) 26. 26.Muller L, Bobbia X, Toumi M, Louart G, Molinari N, Ragonnet B, et al. Respiratory variations of inferior vena cava diameter to predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients with acute circulatory failure: Need for a cautious use. Crit Care [Internet]. Crit Care; 2012 [cited 2020 Sep 28];16. Available from: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23043910/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23043910/) 27. 27.Antonelli M, Levy M, Andrews PJD, Chastre J, Hudson LD, Manthous C, et al. Hemodynamic monitoring in shock and implications for management: International Consensus Conference, Paris, France, 27–28 April 2006. Intensive Care Med [Internet]. Springer; 2007 [cited 2020 Sep 28];33:575–90. Available from: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17285286/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17285286/) 28. 28.Zöllei É, Bertalan V, Németh A, Csábi P, László I, Kaszaki J, et al. Non-invasive detection of hypovolemia or fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing subjects. BMC Anesthesiol [Internet]. BioMed Central; 2013 [cited 2020 Sep 28];13:40. Available from: https://hungary.pure.elsevier.com/hu/publications/non-invasive-detection-of-hypovolemia-or-fluid-responsiveness-in- 29. 29.Hu B, Zhou H, Zou X. Preoperative ultrasonographic evaluation of inferior vena cava collapsibility index and caval aorta index. Eur J Anaesthesiol [Internet]. 2020;37:833–5. Available from: [https://journals.lww.com/10.1097/EJA.0000000000001228](https://journals.lww.com/10.1097/EJA.0000000000001228) 30. 30.1. Hayashi Y Fiza B, Duggal N, McMillan CE, Mentz G, Maile MD. Feasibility of Anesthesiologist-Performed Preoperative Echocardiography for the Prediction of Postinduction Hypotension: A Prospective Observational Study. Hayashi Y, editor. Anesthesiol Res Pract [Internet]. 2020;2020:1–9. Available from: [https://www.hindawi.com/journals/arp/2020/1375741/](https://www.hindawi.com/journals/arp/2020/1375741/) 31. 31.Jaremko I, Mačiulienė A, Gelmanas A, Baranauskas T, Tamošiūnas R, Smailys A, et al. Can the inferior vena cava collapsibility index be useful in predicting hypotension during spinal anaesthesia in a spontaneously breathing patient? A mini fluid challenge. Acta medica Litu [Internet]. 2019;26:1–7. Available from: [https://www.journals.vu.lt/AML/article/view/21267](https://www.journals.vu.lt/AML/article/view/21267) 32. 32.Kalshetty K, Jahan N, Setlur R, Jaiswal A, Dwivedi D. Inferior vena cava collapsibility index for the assessment of fluid responsiveness among spontaneously breathing preoperative fasting patients - An observational study. J Mar Med Soc [Internet]. Medknow; 2020 [cited 2021 Apr 30];22:151. Available from: [http://www.marinemedicalsociety.in/text.asp?2020/22/2/151/297613](http://www.marinemedicalsociety.in/text.asp?2020/22/2/151/297613) 33. 33.Maizel J, Airapetian N, Lorne E, Tribouilloy C, Massy Z, Slama M. Diagnosis of central hypovolemia by using passive leg raising. Intensive Care Med [Internet]. Springer; 2007 [cited 2020 Sep 28];33:1133–8. Available from: [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00134-007-0642-y](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00134-007-0642-y) 34. 34.Xiao-Ting W, Hua Z, Da-Wei L, Hong-Min Z, Huai-Wu H, Yun L, et al. Changes in end-tidal CO2 could predict fluid responsiveness in the passive leg raising test but not in the mini-fluid challenge test: A prospective and observational study. J Crit Care [Internet]. 2015;30:1061–6. Available from: [https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0883944115003275](https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0883944115003275) 35. 35.Teboul JL, Monnet X. Prediction of volume responsiveness in critically ill patients with spontaneous breathing activity. Curr Opin Crit Care [Internet]. 2008;14:334–9. Available from: [http://journals.lww.com/00075198-200806000-00016](http://journals.lww.com/00075198-200806000-00016) 36. 36.Cecconi M, De Backer D, Antonelli M, Beale R, Bakker J, Hofer C, et al. Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine [Internet]. Intensive Care Med. Springer Verlag; 2014 [cited 2021 Apr 30]. p. 1795–815. Available from: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25392034/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25392034/) 37. 37.Ceruti S, Minotti B, De Vivo S, De Christophoris P, Anselmi L, Saporito A. PROtocolized care to reduce HYpotension after spinal anaesthesia (ProCRHYSA randomized trial): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Contemp Clin Trials Commun [Internet]. Elsevier Inc; 2016 [cited 2020 Sep 28];4:39–45. Available from: [https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S245186541530034X](https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S245186541530034X) 38. 38.Monnet X, Teboul JL. Passive leg raising. Intensive Care Med. 2008;34:659–63. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00134-008-0994-y&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18214429&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F25%2F2023.05.22.23290367.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000254259400010&link_type=ISI) 39. 39.Ceruti S, Anselmi L, Minotti B, Franceschini D, Aguirre J, Borgeat A, et al. Prevention of arterial hypotension after spinal anaesthesia using vena cava ultrasound to guide fluid management. Br J Anaesth [Internet]. Elsevier Ltd; 2018 [cited 2020 Sep 28];120:101–8. Available from: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29397116/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29397116/) 40. 40.Hackett NJ, De Oliveira GS, Jain UK, Kim JYS. ASA class is a reliable independent predictor of medical complications and mortality following surgery. Int J Surg [Internet]. Elsevier Ltd; 2015 [cited 2020 Sep 28];18:184–90. Available from: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25937154/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25937154/) 41. 41.Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med [Internet]. BioMed Central; 2010 [cited 2023 May 11];8:1–9. Available from: [https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7015-8-18](https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7015-8-18) 42. 42.Thanakitcharu P, Charoenwut M, Siriwiwatanakul N. Inferior vena cava diameter and collapsibility index: A practical non-invasive evaluation of intravascular fluid volume in critically-III patients. J Med Assoc Thail [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2020 Sep 28];96:14–22. Available from: [http://europepmc.org/article/MED/23682518](http://europepmc.org/article/MED/23682518) 43. 43.Citerio G, Bakker J, Bassetti M, Benoit D, Cecconi M, Curtis JR, et al. Year in review in Intensive Care Medicine 2013: I. Acute kidney injury, ultrasound, hemodynamics, cardiac arrest, transfusion, neurocritical care, and nutrition. Intensive Care Med [Internet]. Springer; 2014 [cited 2023 Mar 23];40:147–59. Available from: [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00134-013-3184-5](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00134-013-3184-5) 44. 44.Bodson L, Vieillard-Baron A. Respiratory variation in inferior vena cava diameter: surrogate of central venous pressure or parameter of fluid responsiveness? Let the physiology reply. Crit Care [Internet]. BioMed Central; 2012 [cited 2023 Mar 23];16:181. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC3672574/ 45. 45.Kircher BJ, Himelman RB, Schiller NB. Noninvasive estimation of right atrial pressure from the inspiratory collapse of the inferior vena cava. Am J Cardiol [Internet]. Am J Cardiol; 1990 [cited 2023 Mar 23];66:493–6. Available from: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2386120/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2386120/) [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0002-9149(90)90711-9&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=2386120&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F05%2F25%2F2023.05.22.23290367.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1990DU64300021&link_type=ISI) 46. 46.Chan WH, Lee MS, Lin C, Wu CC, Lai HC, Chan SM, et al. Comparison of anesthesia-controlled operating room time between propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia and desflurane anesthesia in open colorectal surgery: A retrospective study. PLoS One [Internet]. Public Library of Science; 2016 [cited 2023 Mar 23];11:e0165407. Available from: [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0165407](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0165407) 47. 47.Mariano ER, Chu LF, Peinado CR, Mazzei WJ. Anesthesia-controlled time and turnover time for ambulatory upper extremity surgery performed with regional versus general anesthesia. J Clin Anesth [Internet]. NIH Public Access; 2009 [cited 2023 Mar 23];21:253–7. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC2745934/ 48. 48.Monnet X, Marik P, Teboul JL. Passive leg raising for predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:1935–47. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00134-015-4134-1&link_type=DOI) 49. 49.Bona G, Biggiogero M, Favre M, Roncador M, Saporito A, Ceruti S. Fluid administration guided by inferior vena cava ultrasound before spinal anaesthesia may reduce post procedural hypotension rate. A randomizedtrial. Intensive Care Med Exp [Internet]. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 2020 [cited 2023 Mar 23];8:2021.06.20.21258944. Available from: https://go.openathens.net/redirector/rsm.ac.uk?url=/docview/2484524450?accountid=138535%0Ahttps://vw4tb4ff7s.search.serialssolutions.com?ctx\_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx\_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr\_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aembase&rft\_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&