S-Y Yang1, J-K Shim, Y Song, S-J Seo, Y-L Kwak. 1. Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this prospective trial was to investigate the ability of pulse pressure variation (PPV) and corrected flow time (FTc) to predict fluid responsiveness in the prone position. METHODS: Forty-four patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery in the prone position on a Wilson frame were prospectively studied. PPV and FTc were measured before and after a colloid bolus (6 ml kg(-1)) both in the supine and in the prone positions. Fluid responsiveness was defined as an increase in the stroke volume index of ≥ 10% as measured by oesophageal Doppler. RESULTS: In the supine position, 26 patients were responders and the areas under the curve (AUC) of the receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves of PPV and FTc were 0.935 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.870-0.999, P<0.001] and 0.822 (95% CI: 0.682-0.961, P<0.001), respectively. The optimal cut-off PPV and FTc values were 15% (sensitivity 73%, specificity 94%) and 358 ms (sensitivity 88%, specificity 78%), respectively. In the prone position, 34 patients were responders and the AUCs of PPV and FTc were 0.969 (95% CI: 0.912-1.000, P<0.001) and 0.846 (95% CI: 0.706-0.985, P=0.001), respectively. The optimal cut-off PPV and FTc values were 14% (sensitivity 97%, specificity 90%) and 331 ms (sensitivity 77%, specificity 90%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: While the predictability of PPV was significantly higher than that of FTc in the prone position, both variables showed high predictability and remained as useful indices for guiding fluid therapy in prone patients with minimal alterations in their optimal cut-off values to predict fluid responsiveness. Clinical trial registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01646359?term=NCT01646359&rank=1 and unique identification number NCT01646359.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this prospective trial was to investigate the ability of pulse pressure variation (PPV) and corrected flow time (FTc) to predict fluid responsiveness in the prone position. METHODS: Forty-four patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery in the prone position on a Wilson frame were prospectively studied. PPV and FTc were measured before and after a colloid bolus (6 ml kg(-1)) both in the supine and in the prone positions. Fluid responsiveness was defined as an increase in the stroke volume index of ≥ 10% as measured by oesophageal Doppler. RESULTS: In the supine position, 26 patients were responders and the areas under the curve (AUC) of the receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves of PPV and FTc were 0.935 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.870-0.999, P<0.001] and 0.822 (95% CI: 0.682-0.961, P<0.001), respectively. The optimal cut-off PPV and FTc values were 15% (sensitivity 73%, specificity 94%) and 358 ms (sensitivity 88%, specificity 78%), respectively. In the prone position, 34 patients were responders and the AUCs of PPV and FTc were 0.969 (95% CI: 0.912-1.000, P<0.001) and 0.846 (95% CI: 0.706-0.985, P=0.001), respectively. The optimal cut-off PPV and FTc values were 14% (sensitivity 97%, specificity 90%) and 331 ms (sensitivity 77%, specificity 90%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: While the predictability of PPV was significantly higher than that of FTc in the prone position, both variables showed high predictability and remained as useful indices for guiding fluid therapy in prone patients with minimal alterations in their optimal cut-off values to predict fluid responsiveness. Clinical trial registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01646359?term=NCT01646359&rank=1 and unique identification number NCT01646359.
Authors: Igor Barjaktarevic; William E Toppen; Scott Hu; Elizabeth Aquije Montoya; Stephanie Ong; Russell Buhr; Ian J David; Tisha Wang; Talayeh Rezayat; Steven Y Chang; David Elashoff; Daniela Markovic; David Berlin; Maxime Cannesson Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Su Hyun Lee; Yong-Min Chun; Young Jun Oh; Seokyung Shin; Sang Jun Park; Soo Young Kim; Yong Seon Choi Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Michael R Mathis; Samuel A Schechtman; Milo C Engoren; Amy M Shanks; Aleda Thompson; Sachin Kheterpal; Kevin K Tremper Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Martijn van Lavieren; Jeroen Veelenturf; Charlotte Hofhuizen; Marion van der Kolk; Johannes van der Hoeven; Peter Pickkers; Joris Lemson; Benno Lansdorp Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 2.217