| Literature DB >> 24910727 |
Woon-Seok Kang1, Jae Yun Kim2, Nam Sik Woo1, Tae Gyoon Yoon1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The usefulness of dynamic parameters derived by heart-lung interaction for fluid responsiveness in pediatric patients has been revealed. However, the effects of peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) that could affect the absolute values and the accuracy in pediatric patients have not been well established.Entities:
Keywords: Cardiac surgical procedures; Fluid therapy; Ventilation
Year: 2014 PMID: 24910727 PMCID: PMC4041954 DOI: 10.4097/kjae.2014.66.5.358
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Korean J Anesthesiol ISSN: 2005-6419
Patient Characteristics
Values are presented as the mean ± SD or numbers of patients.
Comparisons of Hemodynamic Parameters
Values are presented as the median (25-75%). MAP: mean arterial blood pressure, HR: heart rate, CVP: central venous pressure, CO: cardiac output, CI: cardiac index, PIP10: peak inspiratory pressure 10 cmH2O, PIP15: peak inspiratory pressure 15 cmH2O, PIP20: peak inspiratory pressure 20 cmH2O, PIP25: peak inspiratory pressure 25 cmH2O.
Comparisons of Stroke Volume Variation
Values are presented as the mean ± SD (95% confidence interval). SVV: stroke volume variation, PIP10: peak inspiratory pressure 10 cmH2O, PIP15: peak inspiratory pressure 15 cmH2O, PIP20: peak inspiratory pressure 20 cmH2O, PIP25: peak inspiratory pressure 25 cmH2O. *P < 0.05, vs PIP10. †P < 0.05, vs PIP15, ‡P < 0.05, vs PIP20.
Fig. 1Stroke volume variation according to different peak inspiratory pressures. PIP10: peak inspiratory pressure 10 cmH2O, PIP15: peak inspiratory pressure 15 cmH2O, PIP20: peak inspiratory pressure 20 cmH2O, PIP25: peak inspiratory pressure 25 cmH2O. *P < 0.05, vs PIP10. †P < 0.05, vs PIP15. ‡P < 0.05, vs PIP20.