Literature DB >> 22552875

Combination of continuous pulse pressure variation monitoring and cardiac filling pressure to predict fluid responsiveness.

Geoffray Keller1, Karin Sinavsky, Olivier Desebbe, Jean-Jacques Lehot.   

Abstract

To assess if combining central venous pressure (CVP) and/or pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) information with arterial pulse pressure variation can increase the ability to predict fluid responsiveness in patients under general anesthesia. This study is a retrospective analysis of patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass surgery and monitored with a pulmonary artery catheter who underwent a volume expansion after induction of general anesthesia. Among the 46 patients studied, 31 were responders to volume expansion. CVP similar to PCWP, was a poor predictor of fluid responsiveness, as indicated by low values of areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves [0.585 (95 % CI 0.389-0.780) and 0.563 (95 % CI 0.373-0.753) respectively, p = 0.76]. The area obtained for PPV was 0.897 (95 % CI 0.801-0.992) with a threshold value of 12 %. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio was 83.9 %, 86.7 %, 6.29 and 0.19 respectively. Combining information on right and/or left cardiac filling pressures with PPV did not increase the ability to predict whether a patient will be a responder or a non-responder to volume expansion. The ability to identify a potentially fluid responsive patient was no better using PPV plus cardiac filling pressures when compared to using PPV alone. Therefore, if PPV values are being monitored in a patient, CVP and PCWP values do not provide additional information to predict fluid responsiveness.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22552875     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-012-9365-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput        ISSN: 1387-1307            Impact factor:   2.502


  21 in total

1.  Relation between respiratory changes in arterial pulse pressure and fluid responsiveness in septic patients with acute circulatory failure.

Authors:  F Michard; S Boussat; D Chemla; N Anguel; A Mercat; Y Lecarpentier; C Richard; M R Pinsky; J L Teboul
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 21.405

2.  Variability between measurements of cardiac output.

Authors:  H J Swan; W Ganz
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1976 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 7.598

Review 3.  Pulse pressure variation: where are we today?

Authors:  Maxime Cannesson; Mateo Aboy; Christoph K Hofer; Mohamed Rehman
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 4.  Changes in arterial pressure during mechanical ventilation.

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

5.  The ability of stroke volume variations obtained with Vigileo/FloTrac system to monitor fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients.

Authors:  Maxime Cannesson; Henri Musard; Olivier Desebbe; Cécile Boucau; Rémi Simon; Roland Hénaine; Jean-Jacques Lehot
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 5.108

6.  Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of pulse pressure variations for the prediction of fluid responsiveness: a "gray zone" approach.

Authors:  Maxime Cannesson; Yannick Le Manach; Christoph K Hofer; Jean Pierre Goarin; Jean-Jacques Lehot; Benoît Vallet; Benoît Tavernier
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 7.892

7.  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

8.  Cardiac filling pressures are not appropriate to predict hemodynamic response to volume challenge.

Authors:  David Osman; Christophe Ridel; Patrick Ray; Xavier Monnet; Nadia Anguel; Christian Richard; Jean-Louis Teboul
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 7.598

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.  Early use of the pulmonary artery catheter and outcomes in patients with shock and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Christian Richard; Josiane Warszawski; Nadia Anguel; Nicolas Deye; Alain Combes; Didier Barnoud; Thierry Boulain; Yannick Lefort; Muriel Fartoukh; Frederic Baud; Alexandre Boyer; Laurent Brochard; Jean-Louis Teboul
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-11-26       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  4 in total

1.  Intra-Operative Fluid Management in Adult Neurosurgical Patients Undergoing Intracranial Tumour Surgery: Randomised Control Trial Comparing Pulse Pressure Variance (PPV) and Central Venous Pressure (CVP).

Authors:  Shalini Cynthia Sundaram; Serina Ruth Salins; Amar Nandha Kumar; Grace Korula
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-05-01

Review 2.  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

3.  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

4.  Slope analysis for the prediction of fluid responsiveness by a stepwise PEEP elevation recruitment maneuver in mechanically ventilated patients.

Authors:  Sylvain Vallier; Jean-Baptiste Bouchet; Olivier Desebbe; Camille Francou; Darren Raphael; Bernard Tardy; Laurent Gergele; Jérôme Morel
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2022-01-03       Impact factor: 2.217

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.