Literature DB >> 28299589

Respiratory variation in peak aortic velocity accurately predicts fluid responsiveness in children undergoing neurosurgery under general anesthesia.

Kavita G Morparia1, Srijaya K Reddy2, Laura J Olivieri3, Michael C Spaeder4, Jennifer J Schuette5.   

Abstract

The determination of fluid responsiveness in the critically ill child is of vital importance, more so as fluid overload becomes increasingly associated with worse outcomes. Dynamic markers of volume responsiveness have shown some promise in the pediatric population, but more research is needed before they can be adopted for widespread use. Our aim was to investigate effectiveness of respiratory variation in peak aortic velocity and pulse pressure variation to predict fluid responsiveness, and determine their optimal cutoff values. We performed a prospective, observational study at a single tertiary care pediatric center. Twenty-one children with normal cardiorespiratory status undergoing general anesthesia for neurosurgery were enrolled. Respiratory variation in peak aortic velocity (ΔVpeak ao) was measured both before and after volume expansion using a bedside ultrasound device. Pulse pressure variation (PPV) value was obtained from the bedside monitor. All patients received a 10 ml/kg fluid bolus as volume expansion, and were qualified as responders if stroke volume increased >15% as a result. Utility of ΔVpeak ao and PPV and to predict responsiveness to volume expansion was investigated. A baseline ΔVpeak ao value of greater than or equal to 12.3% best predicted a positive response to volume expansion, with a sensitivity of 77%, specificity of 89% and area under receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90. PPV failed to demonstrate utility in this patient population. Respiratory variation in peak aortic velocity is a promising marker for optimization of perioperative fluid therapy in the pediatric population and can be accurately measured using bedside ultrasonography. More research is needed to evaluate the lack of effectiveness of pulse pressure variation for this purpose.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bedside ultrasound; Cardiopulmonary interaction; Echocardiography; Fluid responsiveness; Respiratory variation in aortic velocity

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28299589     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-017-0013-3

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


  24 in total

1.  Prediction of fluid responsiveness by a continuous non-invasive assessment of arterial pressure in critically ill patients: comparison with four other dynamic indices.

Authors:  X Monnet; M Dres; A Ferré; G Le Teuff; M Jozwiak; A Bleibtreu; M-C Le Deley; D Chemla; C Richard; J-L Teboul
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2012-06-26       Impact factor: 9.166

Review 2.  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

3.  Systolic blood pressure variation is a sensitive indicator of hypovolemia in ventilated dogs subjected to graded hemorrhage.

Authors:  A Perel; R Pizov; S Cotev
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 7.892

4.  Age-associated changes in arterial elastic properties in children.

Authors:  Hideaki Senzaki; Michio Akagi; Toshio Hishi; Akira Ishizawa; Masayoshi Yanagisawa; Satoshi Masutani; Toshiki Kobayashi; Shoich Awa
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2002-08-15       Impact factor: 3.183

5.  Respiratory variation in aortic blood flow velocity as a predictor of fluid responsiveness in children after repair of ventricular septal defect.

Authors:  Deok Young Choi; Hyun Jeong Kwak; Hee Yeon Park; Yong Beom Kim; Chang Hyu Choi; Ji Yeon Lee
Journal:  Pediatr Cardiol       Date:  2010-08-13       Impact factor: 1.655

6.  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

7.  Pulse pressure variations to predict fluid responsiveness: influence of tidal volume.

Authors:  Daniel De Backer; Sarah Heenen; Michael Piagnerelli; Marc Koch; Jean-Louis Vincent
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2005-03-08       Impact factor: 17.440

8.  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

9.  Pulmonary artery occlusion pressure and central venous pressure fail to predict ventricular filling volume, cardiac performance, or the response to volume infusion in normal subjects.

Authors:  Anand Kumar; Ramon Anel; Eugene Bunnell; Kalim Habet; Sergio Zanotti; Stephanie Marshall; Alex Neumann; Amjad Ali; Mary Cheang; Clifford Kavinsky; Joseph E Parrillo
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 7.598

Review 10.  Respiratory variation in aortic blood flow peak velocity to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  François-Pierrick Desgranges; Olivier Desebbe; Edmundo Pereira de Souza Neto; Darren Raphael; Dominique Chassard
Journal:  Paediatr Anaesth       Date:  2015-11-06       Impact factor: 2.556

View more
  10 in total

1.  Fact and controversies when assessing fluid responsiveness.

Authors:  Karim Bendjelid
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2017-04-19       Impact factor: 2.502

2.  Suprasternal notch echocardiography: a potential alternative for the measurement of respiratory variation in aortic blood flow peak velocity in mechanically ventilated children.

Authors:  Pauline Devauchelle; Mathilde de Queiroz Siqueira; Marc Lilot; Dominique Chassard; François-Pierrick Desgranges
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  End-expiratory occlusion test predicts fluid responsiveness in cardiac surgical patients in the operating theatre.

Authors:  Li-Ying Xu; Guo-Wei Tu; Jing Cang; Jun-Yi Hou; Ying Yu; Zhe Luo; Ke-Fang Guo
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-07

4.  Confidence level of pediatric trainees in management of shock states.

Authors:  Kavita Morparia; Julie Berg; Sonali Basu
Journal:  World J Crit Care Med       Date:  2018-05-04

Review 5.  Journal of clinical monitoring and computing end of year summary 2018: hemodynamic monitoring and management.

Authors:  Bernd Saugel; Moritz Flick; Karim Bendjelid; Lester A H Critchley; Simon T Vistisen; Thomas W L Scheeren
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2019-03-07       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 6.  Fluid responsiveness in the pediatric population.

Authors:  Ji-Hyun Lee; Eun-Hee Kim; Young-Eun Jang; Hee-Soo Kim; Jin-Tae Kim
Journal:  Korean J Anesthesiol       Date:  2019-10-01

7.  Respiratory Variations in Peak Peripheral Artery Velocities and Waveforms for Rapid Assessment of Fluid Responsiveness in Traumatic Shock Patients.

Authors:  Qian Zhang; Xiu-Rong Shi; Yi Shan; Jian Wan; Xuan Ju; Xi Song; Conghui Fan; Xinyuan Lu; Jie Sun; Liwei Duan; Zhaofen Lin; Jinlong Liu
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2021-01-08

8.  Dynamic variables predict fluid responsiveness in pre-school and school children undergoing neurosurgery: a prospective observational study.

Authors:  Lin-Lin Song; Zhi-Yu Geng; Wei Ma; Ya-Fei Liu; Dong-Xin Wang
Journal:  Transl Pediatr       Date:  2021-11

Review 9.  Hemodynamic monitoring and management of pediatric septic shock.

Authors:  En-Pei Lee; Han-Ping Wu; Oi-Wa Chan; Jainn-Jim Lin; Shao-Hsuan Hsia
Journal:  Biomed J       Date:  2021-10-12       Impact factor: 7.892

10.  Value of respiratory variation of aortic peak velocity in predicting children receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xiaoying Wang; Lulu Jiang; Shuai Liu; Yali Ge; Ju Gao
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2019-11-22       Impact factor: 9.097

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.