Literature DB >> 19847400

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

Laurent Muller1, Guillaume Louart, Philippe-Jean Bousquet, Damien Candela, Lana Zoric, Jean-Emmanuel de La Coussaye, Samir Jaber, Jean-Yves Lefrant.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Assessing pulse pressure variation (PPV) to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with tidal volume (VT) and the impact of VT and airway driving pressure (P(plat) - PEEP) on the ability of PPV for predicting fluid responsiveness.
DESIGN: Prospective interventional study.
SETTING: ICU of a university hospital. PATIENTS: Fifty-seven mechanically ventilated and sedated patients with acute circulatory failure requiring cardiac output (CO) measurement. INTERVENTION: Fluid challenge was given in patients with signs of hypoperfusion (oliguria <0.5 ml kg(-1) h(-1), attempt to decrease vasopressor infusion rate). Fluid responsiveness was defined as an increase in the stroke index (SI) >or=15%. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated for PPV and central venous pressure (CVP).
RESULTS: The stroke index was increased >or=15% in 41 patients (71%). At baseline, CVP was lower and PPV was higher in responders. The areas under the ROC curves of PPV and CVP were 0.77 (95% CI 0.65-0.90) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.64-0.89), respectively (P = 0.93). The best cutoff values of PPV and CVP were 7% and 9 mmHg, respectively. In 30 out of 41 responders, PPV was <13%. Using a polytomic logistic regression (P(plat)--PEEP) was the sole independent factor associated with a PPV value <13% in responders. In these responders, (P(plat)--PEEP) was <or=20 cmH(2)O.
CONCLUSION: In patients mechanically ventilated with low VT, PPV values <13% do not rule out fluid responsiveness, especially when (P(plat)--PEEP) is <or=20 cmH(2)O.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19847400     DOI: 10.1007/s00134-009-1686-y

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


  36 in total

Review 1.  Changes in arterial pressure during mechanical ventilation.

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

2.  A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases.

Authors:  J A Hanley; B J McNeil
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Differential alterations in microvascular perfusion in various organs during early and late sepsis.

Authors:  P Wang; M Zhou; M W Rana; Z F Ba; I H Chaudry
Journal:  Am J Physiol       Date:  1992-07

4.  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

5.  Influence of tidal volume on left ventricular stroke volume variation measured by pulse contour analysis in mechanically ventilated patients.

Authors:  Daniel A Reuter; Julian Bayerlein; Matthias S G Goepfert; Florian C Weis; Erich Kilger; Peter Lamm; Alwin E Goetz
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2003-02-11       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  Mechanical ventilation with lower tidal volumes and positive end-expiratory pressure prevents pulmonary inflammation in patients without preexisting lung injury.

Authors:  Esther K Wolthuis; Goda Choi; Mark C Dessing; Paul Bresser; Rene Lutter; Misa Dzoljic; Tom van der Poll; Margreeth B Vroom; Markus Hollmann; Marcus J Schultz
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 7.892

7.  Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008.

Authors:  R Phillip Dellinger; Mitchell M Levy; Jean M Carlet; Julian Bion; Margaret M Parker; Roman Jaeschke; Konrad Reinhart; Derek C Angus; Christian Brun-Buisson; Richard Beale; Thierry Calandra; Jean-Francois Dhainaut; Herwig Gerlach; Maurene Harvey; John J Marini; John Marshall; Marco Ranieri; Graham Ramsay; Jonathan Sevransky; B Taylor Thompson; Sean Townsend; Jeffrey S Vender; Janice L Zimmerman; Jean-Louis Vincent
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 7.598

8.  Online monitoring of pulse pressure variation to guide fluid therapy after cardiac surgery.

Authors:  Jose Otavio Auler; Filomena Galas; Ludhmila Hajjar; Luciana Santos; Thiago Carvalho; Frédéric Michard
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 5.108

9.  The ability of a novel algorithm for automatic estimation of the respiratory variations in arterial pulse pressure to monitor fluid responsiveness in the operating room.

Authors:  Maxime Cannesson; Juliette Slieker; Olivier Desebbe; Christian Bauer; Pascal Chiari; Roland Hénaine; Jean-Jacques Lehot
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 5.108

10.  A comparison of systolic blood pressure variations and echocardiographic estimates of end-diastolic left ventricular size in patients after aortic surgery.

Authors:  P Coriat; M Vrillon; A Perel; J F Baron; F Le Bret; M Saada; P Viars
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 5.108

View more
  37 in total

1.  Fluid responsiveness predicted by noninvasive bioreactance-based passive leg raise test.

Authors:  Brahim Benomar; Alexandre Ouattara; Philippe Estagnasie; Alain Brusset; Pierre Squara
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2010-07-28       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

Review 3.  Hemodynamic monitoring during liver transplantation: A state of the art review.

Authors:  Mona Rezai Rudnick; Lorenzo De Marchi; Jeffrey S Plotkin
Journal:  World J Hepatol       Date:  2015-06-08

4.  Applicability of stroke volume variation in patients of a general intensive care unit: a longitudinal observational study.

Authors:  Sebastian Mair; Julia Tschirdewahn; Simon Götz; Johanna Frank; Veit Phillip; Benedikt Henschel; Caroline Schultheiss; Ulrich Mayr; Sebastian Noe; Matthias Treiber; Roland M Schmid; Bernd Saugel; Wolfgang Huber
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2016-11-05       Impact factor: 2.502

5.  Effect of tidal volume, intrathoracic pressure, and cardiac contractility on variations in pulse pressure, stroke volume, and intrathoracic blood volume.

Authors:  Jaume Mesquida; Hyung Kook Kim; Michael R Pinsky
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2011-07-08       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  Update on the assessment of fluid responsiveness.

Authors:  Koichi Suehiro
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2020-01-07       Impact factor: 2.078

7.  Arterial Pressure Variation in Elective Noncardiac Surgery: Identifying Reference Distributions and Modifying Factors.

Authors:  Michael R Mathis; Samuel A Schechtman; Milo C Engoren; Amy M Shanks; Aleda Thompson; Sachin Kheterpal; Kevin K Tremper
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 7.892

8.  Mandatory criteria for the application of variability-based parameters of fluid responsiveness: a prospective study in different groups of ICU patients.

Authors:  Wolfgang Huber; Uli Mayr; Andreas Umgelter; Michael Franzen; Wolfgang Reindl; Roland M Schmid; Florian Eckel
Journal:  J Zhejiang Univ Sci B       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 3.066

9.  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

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.