Literature DB >> 15539728

Pulse pressure variation predicts fluid responsiveness following coronary artery bypass surgery.

Andreas Kramer1, David Zygun, Harvey Hawes, Paul Easton, Andre Ferland.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the degree of pulse pressure variation (PPV) and systolic pressure variation (SPV) predict an increase in cardiac output (CO) in response to volume challenge in postoperative patients who have undergone coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and to determine whether PPV is superior to SPV in this setting. DESIGN AND
SETTING: This was a prospective clinical study conducted in the cardiovascular ICU of a university hospital. PATIENTS: Twenty-one patients were studied immediately after arrival in the ICU following CABG. INTERVENTION: A fluid bolus was administered to all patients. MEASUREMENTS: Hemodynamic measurements, including central venous pressure (CVP), pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP), CO (thermodilution), percentage of SPV (%SPV), and percentage of PPV (%PPV), were performed shortly after patient arrival in the ICU. Patients were given a rapid 500-mL fluid challenge, after which hemodynamic measurements were repeated. Patients whose CO increased by >/= 12% were considered to be fluid responders. The ability of different parameters to distinguish between responders and nonresponders was compared.
RESULTS: In response to the volume challenge, 6 patients were responders and 15 were nonresponders. Baseline CVP and PAOP were no different between these two groups. In contrast, the %SPV and the %PPV were significantly higher in responders than in nonresponders. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis suggested that the %PPV was the best predictor of fluid responsiveness. The ideal %PPV threshold for distinguishing responders from nonresponders was found to be 11. A PPV value of >/= 11% predicted an increase in CO with 100% sensitivity and 93% specificity.
CONCLUSION: PPV and SPV can be used to predict whether or not volume expansion will increase CO in postoperative CABG patients. PPV was superior to SPV at predicting fluid responsiveness. Both of these measures were far superior to CVP and PAOP.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15539728     DOI: 10.1378/chest.126.5.1563

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chest        ISSN: 0012-3692            Impact factor:   9.410


  36 in total

1.  Assessment of cardiac preload status by pulse pressure variation in patients after anesthesia induction: comparison with central venous pressure and initial distribution volume of glucose.

Authors:  Zhiyong He; Hui Qiao; Wei Zhou; Yun Wang; Zhendong Xu; Xuehua Che; Jun Zhang; Weimin Liang
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 2.078

2.  Clinical value of pulse pressure variations in ARDS. Still an unresolved issue?

Authors:  Jean-Louis Teboul; Antoine Vieillard-Baron
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2005-03-02       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Does intravenous landiolol, a β1-adrenergic blocker, affect stroke volume variation?

Authors:  Zen'ichiro Wajima; Toshiya Shiga; Kazuyuki Imanaga; Tetsuo Inoue
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2013-05-08       Impact factor: 2.078

4.  Predictive values of pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation for fluid responsiveness in patients with pneumoperitoneum.

Authors:  Marko Zlicar; Vesna Novak-Jankovic; Rok Blagus; Maurizio Cecconi
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2017-11-17       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 5.  Can we Improve Outcome in High Risk Surgery?

Authors:  Andras Mikor; Zsolt Molnar
Journal:  Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim       Date:  2013-12-01

Review 6.  Using what you get: dynamic physiologic signatures of critical illness.

Authors:  Andre L Holder; Gilles Clermont
Journal:  Crit Care Clin       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 3.598

Review 7.  Systematic review including re-analyses of 1148 individual data sets of central venous pressure as a predictor of fluid responsiveness.

Authors:  T G Eskesen; M Wetterslev; A Perner
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 17.440

8.  Vasodilation increases pulse pressure variation, mimicking hypovolemic status in rabbits.

Authors:  Glauco A Westphal; Anderson Roman Gonçalves; Antônio Bedin; Raquel Bissacotti Steglich; Eliezer Silva; Luiz Francisco Poli-de-Figueiredo
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.365

9.  Pulse pressure variation and volume responsiveness during acutely increased pulmonary artery pressure: an experimental study.

Authors:  Fritz Daudel; David Tüller; Stefanie Krähenbühl; Stephan M Jakob; Jukka Takala
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2010-06-24       Impact factor: 9.097

10.  The influence of the airway driving pressure on pulsed pressure variation as a predictor of fluid responsiveness.

Authors:  Laurent Muller; Guillaume Louart; Philippe-Jean Bousquet; Damien Candela; Lana Zoric; Jean-Emmanuel de La Coussaye; Samir Jaber; Jean-Yves Lefrant
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2009-10-22       Impact factor: 17.440

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.