BACKGROUND: Stroke volume variation (SVV) is being increasingly used to predict fluid responsiveness. Since radial arterial pressure (RAP) and femoral arterial pressure (FAP) frequently showing discrepancies during liver transplantation (LT), we sought to investigate the effect of differing arterial waveforms on SVV and cardiac output (CO) derived from the Vigileo device, by comparing SVV and CO values derived from RAP (SVV(RAP), CO(RAP)) and FAP (SVV(FAP), CO(FAP)) during LT. METHODS: The linear associations and agreements between SVV(RAP) and SVV(FAP) and between CO(RAP) and CO(FAP) were assessed during LT. Hemodynamic variables were measured at nine predefined time points in all 32 recipients, resulting in 288 data pairs. RESULTS: Correlations were observed between SVV(RAP) and SVV(FAP) (r = .961) and between CO(RAP) and CO(FAP) (r = .848) at all time points. These correlations between SVV(RAP) and SVV(FAP) (r = .923) and between CO(RAP) and CO(FAP) (r = .902) existed even during the period when mean RAP and FAP values differed (10 minutes after reperfusion). Bland-Altman analysis for SVV(RAP) versus SVV(FAP) and for CO(RAP) versus CO(FAP) showed weak biases (-0.2% and -0.5 L/min) and reasonable limits of agreement (-2.2 to 1.8% and -1.9 to 0.9 L/min). The percentage errors for SVV and CO values were 27.0% and 22.2%. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between SVV(RAP) and SVV(FAP) when measured using the Vigileo device during LT. This finding indicated that SVV obtained using the Vigileo device offered relatively consistent information regardless of the catheterization site.
BACKGROUND:Stroke volume variation (SVV) is being increasingly used to predict fluid responsiveness. Since radial arterial pressure (RAP) and femoral arterial pressure (FAP) frequently showing discrepancies during liver transplantation (LT), we sought to investigate the effect of differing arterial waveforms on SVV and cardiac output (CO) derived from the Vigileo device, by comparing SVV and CO values derived from RAP (SVV(RAP), CO(RAP)) and FAP (SVV(FAP), CO(FAP)) during LT. METHODS: The linear associations and agreements between SVV(RAP) and SVV(FAP) and between CO(RAP) and CO(FAP) were assessed during LT. Hemodynamic variables were measured at nine predefined time points in all 32 recipients, resulting in 288 data pairs. RESULTS: Correlations were observed between SVV(RAP) and SVV(FAP) (r = .961) and between CO(RAP) and CO(FAP) (r = .848) at all time points. These correlations between SVV(RAP) and SVV(FAP) (r = .923) and between CO(RAP) and CO(FAP) (r = .902) existed even during the period when mean RAP and FAP values differed (10 minutes after reperfusion). Bland-Altman analysis for SVV(RAP) versus SVV(FAP) and for CO(RAP) versus CO(FAP) showed weak biases (-0.2% and -0.5 L/min) and reasonable limits of agreement (-2.2 to 1.8% and -1.9 to 0.9 L/min). The percentage errors for SVV and CO values were 27.0% and 22.2%. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between SVV(RAP) and SVV(FAP) when measured using the Vigileo device during LT. This finding indicated that SVV obtained using the Vigileo device offered relatively consistent information regardless of the catheterization site.
Authors: Matthew Lee; Laurence Weinberg; Brett Pearce; Nicholas Scurrah; David A Story; Param Pillai; Peter R McCall; Larry P McNicol; Philip J Peyton Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Robert H Thiele; Douglas A Colquhoun; Jason M Tucker-Schwartz; George T Gillies; Marcel E Durieux Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2012-08-19 Impact factor: 2.502