INTRODUCTION: Pulse pressure variation (PPV) has been shown to predict fluid responsiveness in ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The present study was aimed at assessing the diagnostic accuracy of PPV for prediction of fluid responsiveness by using the grey zone approach in a large population. METHODS: The study pooled data of 556 patients from nine French ICUs. Hemodynamic (PPV, central venous pressure (CVP) and cardiac output) and ventilator variables were recorded. Responders were defined as patients increasing their stroke volume more than or equal to 15% after fluid challenge. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and grey zone were defined for PPV. The grey zone was evaluated according to the risk of fluid infusion in hypoxemic patients. RESULTS: Fluid challenge led to increased stroke volume more than or equal to 15% in 267 patients (48%). The areas under the ROC curve of PPV and CVP were 0.73 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68 to 0.77) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.70), respectively (P<0.001). A grey zone of 4 to 17% (62% of patients) was found for PPV. A tidal volume more than or equal to 8 ml.kg(-1) and a driving pressure (plateau pressure - PEEP) more than 20 cmH2O significantly improved the area under the ROC curve for PPV. When taking into account the risk of fluid infusion, the grey zone for PPV was 2 to 13%. CONCLUSIONS: In ventilated ICU patients, PPV values between 4 and 17%, encountered in 62% patients exhibiting validity prerequisites, did not predict fluid responsiveness.
INTRODUCTION: Pulse pressure variation (PPV) has been shown to predict fluid responsiveness in ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The present study was aimed at assessing the diagnostic accuracy of PPV for prediction of fluid responsiveness by using the grey zone approach in a large population. METHODS: The study pooled data of 556 patients from nine French ICUs. Hemodynamic (PPV, central venous pressure (CVP) and cardiac output) and ventilator variables were recorded. Responders were defined as patients increasing their stroke volume more than or equal to 15% after fluid challenge. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and grey zone were defined for PPV. The grey zone was evaluated according to the risk of fluid infusion in hypoxemic patients. RESULTS: Fluid challenge led to increased stroke volume more than or equal to 15% in 267 patients (48%). The areas under the ROC curve of PPV and CVP were 0.73 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68 to 0.77) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.70), respectively (P<0.001). A grey zone of 4 to 17% (62% of patients) was found for PPV. A tidal volume more than or equal to 8 ml.kg(-1) and a driving pressure (plateau pressure - PEEP) more than 20 cmH2O significantly improved the area under the ROC curve for PPV. When taking into account the risk of fluid infusion, the grey zone for PPV was 2 to 13%. CONCLUSIONS: In ventilated ICU patients, PPV values between 4 and 17%, encountered in 62% patients exhibiting validity prerequisites, did not predict fluid responsiveness.
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
Authors: Daniel A Reuter; Thomas W Felbinger; Christian Schmidt; Erich Kilger; Oliver Goedje; Peter Lamm; Alwin E Goetz Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2002-03-20 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Gerald Chanques; John P Kress; Anne Pohlman; Shruti Patel; Jason Poston; Samir Jaber; Jesse B Hall Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: P Mayo; R Arntfield; M Balik; P Kory; G Mathis; G Schmidt; M Slama; G Volpicelli; N Xirouchaki; A McLean; A Vieillard-Baron Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-03-07 Impact factor: 17.440
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
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
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
Authors: Benoît Bataille; David Le Moal; Thomas Renault; Pierre Cocquet; Jade de Selle; Stein Silva Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2021-12-05 Impact factor: 1.977
Authors: Tyler J Loftus; Amanda C Filiberto; Yanjun Li; Jeremy Balch; Allyson C Cook; Patrick J Tighe; Philip A Efron; Gilbert R Upchurch; Parisa Rashidi; Xiaolin Li; Azra Bihorac Journal: Surgery Date: 2020-06-13 Impact factor: 3.982