Christoph Karl Hofer1, Martin Geisen1, Sonja Hartnack2, Omer Dzemali3, Michael Thomas Ganter4, Andreas Zollinger1. 1. Institute of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Triemli Hospital Zurich, Switzerland. 2. Section of Epidemiology, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Triemli City Hospital Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Institute of Anaesthesiology, Kantonsspital Winterthur, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: During assisted ventilation and spontaneous breathing, functional haemodynamic parameters, including stroke volume variation (SVV) and pulse pressure variation (PPV), are of limited value to predict fluid responsiveness, and the passive leg raising (PLR) manoeuvre has been advocated as a surrogate method. We aimed to study the predictive value of SVV, PPV and PLR for fluid responsiveness during weaning from mechanical ventilation after cardiac surgery. METHODS: Haemodynamic variables and fluid responsiveness were assessed in 34 patients. Upon arrival at the intensive care unit, measurements were performed during continuous mandatory ventilation (CMV) and spontaneous breathing with pressure support (PSV) and after extubation (SPONT). The prediction of a positive fluid responsiveness (defined as stroke volume increase >15% after fluid administration) was tested by calculating the specific receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: A significant increase in stroke volumes was observed during CMV, PSV and SPONT after fluid administration. There were 19 fluid responders (55.9%) during CMV, with 22 (64.7%) and 13 (40.6%) during PSV and SPONT, respectively. The predictive value for a positive fluid responsiveness (area under the ROC curve) for SVV was 0.88, 0.70 and 0.56; was 0.83, 0.69 and 0.48 for PPV; was 0.72, 0.74 and 0.70 for PLR during CMV, PSV and SPONT, respectively. CONCLUSION: During mechanical ventilation, adequate prediction of fluid responsiveness using SVV and PPV was observed. However, during spontaneous breathing, the reliability of SVV and PPV was poor. In this period, PLR as a surrogate was able to predict fluid responsiveness better than SVV or PPV but was less reliable than previously reported.
OBJECTIVE: During assisted ventilation and spontaneous breathing, functional haemodynamic parameters, including stroke volume variation (SVV) and pulse pressure variation (PPV), are of limited value to predict fluid responsiveness, and the passive leg raising (PLR) manoeuvre has been advocated as a surrogate method. We aimed to study the predictive value of SVV, PPV and PLR for fluid responsiveness during weaning from mechanical ventilation after cardiac surgery. METHODS: Haemodynamic variables and fluid responsiveness were assessed in 34 patients. Upon arrival at the intensive care unit, measurements were performed during continuous mandatory ventilation (CMV) and spontaneous breathing with pressure support (PSV) and after extubation (SPONT). The prediction of a positive fluid responsiveness (defined as stroke volume increase >15% after fluid administration) was tested by calculating the specific receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: A significant increase in stroke volumes was observed during CMV, PSV and SPONT after fluid administration. There were 19 fluid responders (55.9%) during CMV, with 22 (64.7%) and 13 (40.6%) during PSV and SPONT, respectively. The predictive value for a positive fluid responsiveness (area under the ROC curve) for SVV was 0.88, 0.70 and 0.56; was 0.83, 0.69 and 0.48 for PPV; was 0.72, 0.74 and 0.70 for PLR during CMV, PSV and SPONT, respectively. CONCLUSION: During mechanical ventilation, adequate prediction of fluid responsiveness using SVV and PPV was observed. However, during spontaneous breathing, the reliability of SVV and PPV was poor. In this period, PLR as a surrogate was able to predict fluid responsiveness better than SVV or PPV but was less reliable than previously reported.
Authors: Brahim Benomar; Alexandre Ouattara; Philippe Estagnasie; Alain Brusset; Pierre Squara Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-07-28 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Y Mahjoub; 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 Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2013-12-29 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: E Kupersztych-Hagege; J-L Teboul; A Artigas; A Talbot; C Sabatier; C Richard; X Monnet Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2013-08-28 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Daniel A Reuter; Julian Bayerlein; Matthias S G Goepfert; Florian C Weis; Erich Kilger; Peter Lamm; Alwin E Goetz Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2003-02-11 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Maurizio Cecconi; Daniel De Backer; Massimo Antonelli; Richard Beale; Jan Bakker; Christoph Hofer; Roman Jaeschke; Alexandre Mebazaa; Michael R Pinsky; Jean Louis Teboul; Jean Louis Vincent; Andrew Rhodes Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 17.440
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