Literature DB >> 22100211

Pulse pressure variation predicts fluid responsiveness in elderly patients after coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

Alexandre Yazigi1, Eliane Khoury, Sani Hlais, Samia Madi-Jebara, Fadia Haddad, Gemma Hayek, Khalil Jabbour.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability of pulse pressure variation to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated elderly patients after coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
DESIGN: A prospective, interventional study.
SETTING: An academic, tertiary referral hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty patients >70 years old and mechanically ventilated after coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
INTERVENTIONS: Intravascular volume expansion using 6% hydroxyethyl starch solution, 7 mL/kg over 20 minutes.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Heart rate, arterial blood pressure, pulse pressure variation, central venous pressure, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure, and stroke volume index were measured immediately before and after volume expansion. Fluid responsiveness was defined as an increase in stroke volume index ≥ 15% after volume expansion. Forty-one patients were fluid responders and 19 patients were nonresponders. In contrast to central venous pressure or pulmonary artery occlusion pressure, pulse pressure variation was higher in the responders than in the nonresponders (22 ± 6% v 9.3 ± 3%, p = 0.001) and correlated with the percent changes in the stroke volume index after volume expansion (r = 0.47, p = 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for pulse pressure variation was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.75-0.94). The threshold value of 11.5% allowed the discrimination between responders and nonresponders with a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 74%.
CONCLUSIONS: Pulse pressure variation is a reliable predictor of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated elderly patients after coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22100211     DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2011.09.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth        ISSN: 1053-0770            Impact factor:   2.628


  11 in total

Review 1.  [S3 guidelines on intensive medical care of cardiac surgery patients : Hemodynamic monitoring and cardiovascular system-an update].

Authors:  M Habicher; T Zajonz; M Heringlake; A Böning; S Treskatsch; U Schirmer; A Markewitz; M Sander
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 1.041

Review 2.  Fluid challenge in critically ill patients receiving haemodynamic monitoring: a systematic review and comparison of two decades.

Authors:  Antonio Messina; Lorenzo Calabrò; Luca Pugliese; Aulona Lulja; Alexandra Sopuch; Daniela Rosalba; Emanuela Morenghi; Glenn Hernandez; Xavier Monnet; Maurizio Cecconi
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 19.334

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  Functional haemodynamic monitoring.

Authors:  Michael R Pinsky
Journal:  Curr Opin Crit Care       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.687

Review 5.  Does pulse pressure variation predict fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xiaobo Yang; Bin Du
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2014-11-27       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 6.  Intravascular volume therapy in adults: Guidelines from the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany.

Authors:  Gernot Marx; Achim W Schindler; Christoph Mosch; Joerg Albers; Michael Bauer; Irmela Gnass; Carsten Hobohm; Uwe Janssens; Stefan Kluge; Peter Kranke; Tobias Maurer; Waltraut Merz; Edmund Neugebauer; Michael Quintel; Norbert Senninger; Hans-Joachim Trampisch; Christian Waydhas; Rene Wildenauer; Kai Zacharowski; Michaela Eikermann
Journal:  Eur J Anaesthesiol       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 4.330

7.  Diagnosis Accuracy of Mean Arterial Pressure Variation during a Lung Recruitment Maneuver to Predict Fluid Responsiveness in Thoracic Surgery with One-Lung Ventilation.

Authors:  Woon-Seok Kang; Chung-Sik Oh; Chulmin Park; Bo Mi Shin; Tae-Gyoon Yoon; Ka-Young Rhee; Nam-Sik Woo; Seong-Hyop Kim
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 8.  What is the impact of the fluid challenge technique on diagnosis of fluid responsiveness? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Laura Toscani; Hollmann D Aya; Dimitra Antonakaki; Davide Bastoni; Ximena Watson; Nish Arulkumaran; Andrew Rhodes; Maurizio Cecconi
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 9.  Utility of central venous pressure measurement in renal transplantation: Is it evidence based?

Authors:  Ahmed Aref; Tariq Zayan; Ajay Sharma; Ahmed Halawa
Journal:  World J Transplant       Date:  2018-06-28

10.  Use of Pulse Pressure Variation as Predictor of Fluid Responsiveness in Patients Ventilated With Low Tidal Volume: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Jorge Iván Alvarado Sánchez; Juan Daniel Caicedo Ruiz; Juan José Diaztagle Fernández; Gustavo Adolfo Ospina-Tascón; Luis Eduardo Cruz Martínez
Journal:  Clin Med Insights Circ Respir Pulm Med       Date:  2020-01-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.