Literature DB >> 24374504

Evaluation of pulse pressure variation validity criteria in critically ill patients: a prospective observational multicentre point-prevalence study.

Y Mahjoub1, V Lejeune, L Muller, S Perbet, L Zieleskiewicz, F Bart, B Veber, C Paugam-Burtz, S Jaber, A Ayham, E Zogheib, S Lasocki, A Vieillard-Baron, H Quintard, O Joannes-Boyau, G Plantefève, P Montravers, S Duperret, M Lakhdari, N Ammenouche, E Lorne, M Slama, H Dupont.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Respiratory variation in pulse pressure (ΔPP) is commonly used to predict the fluid responsiveness of critically ill patients. However, some researchers have demonstrated that this measurement has several limitations. The present study was designed to evaluate the proportion of patients satisfying criteria for valid application of ΔPP at a given time-point.
METHODS: A 1 day, prospective, observational, point-prevalence study was performed in 26 French intensive care units (ICUs). All patients hospitalized in the ICUs on the day of the study were included. The ΔPP validity criteria were recorded prospectively and defined as follows: (i) mechanical ventilation in the absence of spontaneous respiration; (ii) regular cardiac rhythm; (iii) tidal volume ≥8 ml kg(-1) of ideal body weight; (iv) a heart rate/respiratory rate ratio >3.6; (v) total respiratory system compliance ≥30 ml cm H2O(-1); and (vi) tricuspid annular peak systolic velocity ≥0.15 m s(-1).
RESULTS: The study included 311 patients with a Simplified Acute Physiology Score II of 41 (39-43). Overall, only six (2%) patients satisfied all validity criteria. Of the 170 patients with an arterial line in place, only five (3%) satisfied the validity criteria. During the 24 h preceding the study time-point, fluid responsiveness was assessed for 79 patients. ΔPP had been used to assess fluid responsiveness in 15 of these cases (19%).
CONCLUSIONS: A very low percentage of patients satisfied all criteria for valid use of ΔPP in the evaluation of fluid responsiveness. Physicians must consider limitations to the validity of ΔPP before using this variable.

Entities:  

Keywords:  fluid responsiveness; haemodynamic monitoring; pulse pressure variation

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24374504     DOI: 10.1093/bja/aet442

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Anaesth        ISSN: 0007-0912            Impact factor:   9.166


  39 in total

1.  Fluid resuscitation in ICU patients: quo vadis?

Authors:  Anders Perner; Antoine Vieillard-Baron; Jan Bakker
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2015-06-14       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Echocardiography to guide fluid therapy in critically ill patients: check the heart and take a quick look at the lungs.

Authors:  Federico Franchi; Luigi Vetrugno; Sabino Scolletta
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  Applicability of stroke volume variation in patients of a general intensive care unit: a longitudinal observational study.

Authors:  Sebastian Mair; Julia Tschirdewahn; Simon Götz; Johanna Frank; Veit Phillip; Benedikt Henschel; Caroline Schultheiss; Ulrich Mayr; Sebastian Noe; Matthias Treiber; Roland M Schmid; Bernd Saugel; Wolfgang Huber
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2016-11-05       Impact factor: 2.502

4.  Applying mean systemic filling pressure to assess the response to fluid boluses in cardiac post-surgical patients.

Authors:  Kapil Gupta; Soren Sondergaard; Geoffrey Parkin; Mark Leaning; Anders Aneman
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 5.  Respiratory variations in the arterial pressure during mechanical ventilation reflect volume status and fluid responsiveness.

Authors:  Azriel Perel; Reuven Pizov; Shamay Cotev
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  Using extra systoles to predict fluid responsiveness in cardiothoracic critical care patients.

Authors:  Simon Tilma Vistisen
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2016-07-26       Impact factor: 2.502

7.  Isoproterenol infusion and microcirculation in septic shock.

Authors:  S Wiramus; J Textoris; R Bardin; C Vigne; C Kelway; C Martin; M Leone
Journal:  Heart Lung Vessel       Date:  2014

8.  The use of pulse pressure variation for predicting impairment of microcirculatory blood flow.

Authors:  Christoph R Behem; Michael F Graessler; Till Friedheim; Rahel Kluttig; Hans O Pinnschmidt; Anna Duprée; E Sebastian Debus; Daniel A Reuter; Sabine H Wipper; Constantin J C Trepte
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Mandatory criteria for the application of variability-based parameters of fluid responsiveness: a prospective study in different groups of ICU patients.

Authors:  Wolfgang Huber; Uli Mayr; Andreas Umgelter; Michael Franzen; Wolfgang Reindl; Roland M Schmid; Florian Eckel
Journal:  J Zhejiang Univ Sci B       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 3.066

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.