End-Expiratory Occlusion Test for Fluid Responsiveness Assessment
The end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) involves interrupting mechanical ventilation at end-expiration for 15 seconds while monitoring hemodynamic changes, with an increase in cardiac output or pulse pressure ≥5% predicting fluid responsiveness with high accuracy in fully sedated, mechanically ventilated patients. 1
How to Perform the Test
Technical Execution
- Interrupt the ventilator at end-expiration for 15 seconds while continuously monitoring hemodynamic parameters 2, 1
- Measure arterial pulse pressure and cardiac output (via pulse contour analysis or echocardiography) at baseline and during the last 5 seconds of the occlusion 1
- The test acts as an "internal volume challenge" by preventing the cyclic decrease in left ventricular preload that normally occurs during mechanical inspiration 1
Interpretation Thresholds
- An increase in pulse pressure ≥5% during EEOT predicts fluid responsiveness with 87% sensitivity and 100% specificity 1
- An increase in cardiac index ≥5% during EEOT predicts fluid responsiveness with 91% sensitivity and 100% specificity 1
- For echocardiographic assessment, an increase in left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral (LVOT VTI) >4.3% predicts fluid responsiveness with 89.4% sensitivity and 88.9% specificity 2
Critical Limitations in Your Patient Population
Patients with Heart Failure or Coronary Disease
- The EEOT has been validated primarily in general ICU populations with acute circulatory failure, but specific validation in heart failure patients is limited in the available evidence 2, 1
- Exercise caution when interpreting results, as altered ventricular compliance in heart failure may affect the hemodynamic response to preload changes
Absolute Contraindications to EEOT
- Spontaneous breathing activity or patient-triggered ventilator breaths make EEOT unreliable or impossible to perform - in one study, 17 of 34 patients (50%) could not undergo EEOT due to triggering the ventilator during the test 2
- Patients on pressure support ventilation (PSV) show significantly reduced EEOT accuracy compared to fully controlled ventilation 3
- During laparotomy or open abdominal surgery, EEOT cannot discriminate responders from non-responders and should not be used 4
When EEOT is Most Reliable
Optimal Clinical Scenarios
- Fully sedated patients on controlled mechanical ventilation without spontaneous breathing efforts 2, 1
- Patients with cardiac arrhythmias where respiratory variation indices are unreliable 2, 5
- Low tidal volume ventilation (<8 mL/kg) where pulse pressure variation loses accuracy 5
- Low lung compliance conditions where traditional dynamic indices fail 2
Monitoring Requirements
- Requires real-time cardiac output monitoring via pulse contour analysis (e.g., PiCCO) or transthoracic echocardiography 2, 1
- Arterial line is mandatory for continuous pulse pressure measurement 1
Comparison to Alternative Tests
- EEOT performs similarly to passive leg raising (PLR) for predicting fluid responsiveness (AUC 0.957 vs 0.937) but is easier to perform in patients with contraindications to PLR 1
- In patients with spontaneous breathing on PSV, the SIGH35 maneuver (ventilator-generated sigh at 35 cmH₂O for 4 seconds) outperforms EEOT with an AUC of 0.93 versus 0.67 3
- The mini-fluid challenge (100 mL bolus over 1 minute with LVOT VTI monitoring) may be preferable when EEOT is not feasible, with comparable accuracy 2
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
- Do not attempt EEOT in patients with any spontaneous breathing activity - this is the most common reason for test failure and false results 2, 3
- Ensure adequate sedation depth before performing the test to prevent patient-triggered breaths during the 15-second occlusion 1
- Measure hemodynamic changes during the last 5 seconds of occlusion, not immediately after - this timing is critical for accuracy 1
- Do not use EEOT during surgical procedures with open abdomen, as changes in intra-abdominal pressure invalidate the test 4