Literature DB >> 22534733

Efficacy of functional hemodynamic parameters in predicting fluid responsiveness with pulse power analysis in surgical patients.

M Cecconi1, G Monti, M A Hamilton, M Puntis, D Dawson, M L Tuccillo, G Della Rocca, R M Grounds, A Rhodes.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In this study we quantify the ability of dynamic cardiovascular parameters measured by the PulseCO™ algorithm of the LiDCO™plus monitor to predict the response to a fluid challenge in post-operative patients.
METHODS: Surgical patients, admitted to the Intensive Care Unit from the operating theatre were monitored with the LiDCO™plus system. A number of static and dynamic cardiovascular measurements were recorded before and after a fluid challenge. Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to identify the baseline values, with optimum sensitivity and specificity, to predict responsiveness to a fluid challenge.
RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were enrolled, and received protocol-based fluid challenges. Twelve (38%) responded by demonstrating an increase in stroke volume of >15%. Heart rate (HR) and central venous pressure (CVP) were not statistically different between responders and non-responders. Mean arterial pressure (mAP), systolic pressure variation (SPV), pulse pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV) were statistically different between responders and non-responders. Parameters with a ROC area under the curve (AUC) significantly >0.5 included SPV 0.70 (0.52-0.88) P=0.046, PPV 0.87 (0.76-0.99) P<0.0002 and SVV 0.84 (0.71-0.96) P=0.0005. The best cut-off values (sensitivity and specificity) to predict fluid were SPV >9 mmHg (73%, 76%), PPV >13% (83%, 74%) and SVV >12.5% (75%, 83%). ROC analysis did not show the AUC to be significantly >0.5 for HR, mAP and CVP
CONCLUSION: Dynamic indices measured by PulseCO™ (LiDCO) have a high sensitivity and specificity in predicting fluid responsiveness in sedated and mechanically ventilated patients. A cut-off value for PPV of 13% is the most sensitive and specific indicator of fluid responsiveness.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22534733

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Minerva Anestesiol        ISSN: 0375-9393            Impact factor:   3.051


  16 in total

1.  Predictive values of pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation for fluid responsiveness in patients with pneumoperitoneum.

Authors:  Marko Zlicar; Vesna Novak-Jankovic; Rok Blagus; Maurizio Cecconi
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2017-11-17       Impact factor: 2.502

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

4.  Extravascular lung water monitoring of renal replacement therapy in lung water scavenging for septic acute kidney injury.

Authors:  Han Liu; Ying Liu; Jia-Kui Sun; Qiao-Lian Xu; Ying Yan; Yong-Ming Chen; Liang Hong; Huan Xu
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-10-15

5.  Automated stroke volume and pulse pressure variations predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with obstructive jaundice.

Authors:  Feng Zhao; Peng Wang; Shujun Pei; Weidong Mi; Qiang Fu
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-11-15

Review 6.  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 7.  Evolving concepts of hemodynamic monitoring for critically ill patients.

Authors:  Olfa Hamzaoui; Xavier Monnet; Jean-Louis Teboul
Journal:  Indian J Crit Care Med       Date:  2015-04

Review 8.  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

9.  Non-invasive measurements of pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation in anesthetized patients using the Nexfin blood pressure monitor.

Authors:  Jurre Stens; Jeroen Oeben; Ab A Van Dusseldorp; Christa Boer
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2015-08-29       Impact factor: 2.502

10.  A 10-second fluid challenge guided by transthoracic echocardiography can predict fluid responsiveness.

Authors:  Yunfan Wu; Shusheng Zhou; Zhihua Zhou; Bao Liu
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2014-05-27       Impact factor: 9.097

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.