BACKGROUND: Stroke volume variation (SVV) has been shown to be a reliable predictor of fluid responsiveness. It has been reported that SVV is useful for perioperative fluid management. We evaluated SVV and hemodynamics after aortic declamping during abdominal aortic surgery. METHODS: Patients scheduled to undergo abdominal aortic surgery were selected for this study. A FloTrac sensor was fitted to a 20 G cannula indwelled in the radial artery, and cardiac output (CO), central venous pressure (CVP) and SVV were continuously monitored. Patients were divided into two groups depending on pressure decrease after aortic declamping: above 50 mmHg (F group) and below 50 mmHg (N group). CO, CVP and SVV before and after the aortic declamping in the two groups were compared. RESULTS: Thirty patients were included in this study (15 in the F group and 15 in the N group). Measurement points were 26 points in the F group and 28 points in the N group. SVV before aortic declamping in the F group was significantly higher than that in the N group. Rate of decrease in CO after aortic declamping in the F group was significantly higher than that in the N group. There was no difference in CVP between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that monitoring SVV during abdominal aortic surgery is useful.
BACKGROUND:Stroke volume variation (SVV) has been shown to be a reliable predictor of fluid responsiveness. It has been reported that SVV is useful for perioperative fluid management. We evaluated SVV and hemodynamics after aortic declamping during abdominal aortic surgery. METHODS:Patients scheduled to undergo abdominal aortic surgery were selected for this study. A FloTrac sensor was fitted to a 20 G cannula indwelled in the radial artery, and cardiac output (CO), central venous pressure (CVP) and SVV were continuously monitored. Patients were divided into two groups depending on pressure decrease after aortic declamping: above 50 mmHg (F group) and below 50 mmHg (N group). CO, CVP and SVV before and after the aortic declamping in the two groups were compared. RESULTS: Thirty patients were included in this study (15 in the F group and 15 in the N group). Measurement points were 26 points in the F group and 28 points in the N group. SVV before aortic declamping in the F group was significantly higher than that in the N group. Rate of decrease in CO after aortic declamping in the F group was significantly higher than that in the N group. There was no difference in CVP between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that monitoring SVV during abdominal aortic surgery is useful.