Literature DB >> 19347330

Pulse pressure variations adjusted by alveolar driving pressure to assess fluid responsiveness.

Fabrice Vallée1, Jean Christophe M Richard, Arnaud Mari, Thomas Gallas, Eric Arsac, Pascale Sanchez Verlaan, Benjamin Chousterman, Kamran Samii, Michèle Genestal, Olivier Fourcade.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of DeltaPP/DeltaP [pulse pressure variations (DeltaPP) adjusted by alveolar pressure variations (DeltaP = Pplat-PEEPtot)] in predicting fluid responsiveness, to compare its accuracy to that of DeltaPP used alone and to evaluate the influence of tidal volume (Vt) on these two indices.
DESIGN: Prospective study.
SETTING: A 22-bed general intensive care unit (ICU). PATIENTS: Eighty-four surgical or medical ventilated patients requiring fluid challenge. INTERVENTION: A 6 ml/kg colloid fluid challenge in 30 min. MEASUREMENTS AND
RESULTS: Hemodynamic measurements taken before and after fluid challenge. Patients separated into responders and nonresponders according to a 15% increase in their cardiac output. Thirty-nine patients found to be responders and 45 nonresponders. DeltaPP/DeltaP and DeltaPP were both higher in responders than in nonresponders. DeltaPP/DeltaP was a better predictor of fluid responsiveness than PP, especially for patients ventilated with Vt > or = 8 ml/kg [area under the curve (AUC) 0.88 (0.77-0.98) versus 0.75 (0.60-0.89), P < 0.01)]. In this population DeltaPP/DeltaP higher than 0.9 predicted fluid response with positive predictive value of 87% and negative predictive value of 78%. Overall DeltaPP and DeltaPP/DeltaP reliability was poor for patients ventilated with Vt < 8 ml/kg [AUC 0.63 (0.45-0.81) and 0.72 (0.55-0.88), respectively].
CONCLUSION: In this mixed ICU population PP adjusted by P is a simple index which outperforms DeltaPP for patients ventilated with Vt > or = 8 ml/kg. However, correcting DeltaPP by DeltaP still fails to predict fluid response reliably in patients ventilated with low tidal volume.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19347330     DOI: 10.1007/s00134-009-1478-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Intensive Care Med        ISSN: 0342-4642            Impact factor:   17.440


  29 in total

1.  Cyclic changes in arterial pulse during respiratory support revisited by Doppler echocardiography.

Authors:  Antoine Vieillard-Baron; Karim Chergui; Roch Augarde; Sebastien Prin; Bernard Page; Alain Beauchet; François Jardin
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2003-07-17       Impact factor: 21.405

2.  Alveolar pressure, pulmonary venous pressure, and the vascular waterfall.

Authors:  S PERMUTT; B BROMBERGER-BARNEA; H N BANE
Journal:  Med Thorac       Date:  1962

3.  Effect of lung inflation on static pressure-volume characteristics of pulmonary vessels.

Authors:  S PERMUTT; J B HOWELL; D F PROCTOR; R L RILEY
Journal:  J Appl Physiol       Date:  1961-01       Impact factor: 3.531

Review 4.  Changes in arterial pressure during mechanical ventilation.

Authors:  Frédéric Michard
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 7.892

5.  Comparison of two fluid-management strategies in acute lung injury.

Authors:  Herbert P Wiedemann; Arthur P Wheeler; Gordon R Bernard; B Taylor Thompson; Douglas Hayden; Ben deBoisblanc; Alfred F Connors; R Duncan Hite; Andrea L Harabin
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-05-21       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 6.  Volume responsiveness.

Authors:  Xavier Monnet; Jean-Louis Teboul
Journal:  Curr Opin Crit Care       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.687

Review 7.  Interactions between respiration and systemic hemodynamics. Part I: basic concepts.

Authors:  François Feihl; Alain F Broccard
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 17.440

8.  Pulse pressure variations to predict fluid responsiveness: influence of tidal volume.

Authors:  Daniel De Backer; Sarah Heenen; Michael Piagnerelli; Marc Koch; Jean-Louis Vincent
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2005-03-08       Impact factor: 17.440

9.  Systolic pressure variation as a guide to fluid therapy in patients with sepsis-induced hypotension.

Authors:  B Tavernier; O Makhotine; G Lebuffe; J Dupont; P Scherpereel
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 7.892

10.  Left ventricular preload and function during graded haemorrhage and retranfusion in pigs: analysis of arterial pressure waveform and correlation with echocardiography.

Authors:  S Preisman; E DiSegni; Z Vered; A Perel
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 9.166

View more
  26 in total

1.  Can we use pulse pressure variations to predict fluid responsiveness in patients with ARDS?

Authors:  Jean-Yves Lefrant; Daniel De Backer
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2009-04-04       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Combined analysis of cardiac output and CVP changes remains the best way to titrate fluid administration in shocked patients.

Authors:  Fabrice Vallée; Arnaud Mari; Anders Perner; Benoît Vallet
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2010-03-11       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  End-tidal carbon dioxide is better than arterial pressure for predicting volume responsiveness by the passive leg raising test.

Authors:  Xavier Monnet; Aurélien Bataille; Eric Magalhaes; Jérôme Barrois; Marine Le Corre; Clément Gosset; Laurent Guerin; Christian Richard; Jean-Louis Teboul
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2012-09-19       Impact factor: 17.440

4.  Clinical relevance of pulse pressure variations for predicting fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients: the grey zone approach.

Authors:  Matthieu Biais; Stephan Ehrmann; Arnaud Mari; Benjamin Conte; Yazine Mahjoub; Olivier Desebbe; Julien Pottecher; Karim Lakhal; Dalila Benzekri-Lefevre; Nicolas Molinari; Thierry Boulain; Jean-Yves Lefrant; Laurent Muller
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 9.097

5.  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

6.  Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure on the predictability of fluid responsiveness in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients.

Authors:  Yen-Huey Chen; Ying-Ju Lai; Ching-Ying Huang; Hui-Ling Lin; Chung-Chi Huang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Pulse pressure variation and prediction of fluid responsiveness in patients ventilated with low tidal volumes.

Authors:  Clarice Daniele Alves de Oliveira-Costa; Gilberto Friedman; Sílvia Regina Rios Vieira; Léa Fialkow
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 2.365

8.  Respiratory pulse pressure variation fails to predict fluid responsiveness in acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Authors:  Karim Lakhal; Stephan Ehrmann; Dalila Benzekri-Lefèvre; Isabelle Runge; Annick Legras; Pierre-François Dequin; Emmanuelle Mercier; Michel Wolff; Bernard Régnier; Thierry Boulain
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2011-03-07       Impact factor: 9.097

9.  Why do pulse pressure variations fail to predict the response to fluids in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients ventilated with low tidal volume?

Authors:  Daniel De Backer; Sabino Scolletta
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 9.097

10.  Year in review in Intensive Care Medicine 2009: II. Neurology, cardiovascular, experimental, pharmacology and sedation, communication and teaching.

Authors:  Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; François Lemaire; Herwig Gerlach; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jerôme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2010-01-28       Impact factor: 17.440

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.