OBJECTIVES: Preoperative fasting, water deprivation, and intraoperative fluid loss and redistribution result in hypovolemia in patients undergoing surgery. Some findings have indicated that the superior vena cava (SVC) diameter and variation, as determined by transesophageal echocardiography during surgery, do not reflect central venous pressure effectively. This study aimed to compare and correlate the SVC diameter and variation with the stroke volume variation for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing invasive positive pressure ventilation. METHODS: Thirty-six patients scheduled for elective gastrointestinal surgery under general anesthesia with invasive positive pressure ventilation were included in this study. After anesthesia induction, the stroke volume variation, SVC diameter, mean arterial pressure, central venous pressure, and pulse were recorded, and measurements after fluid challenge were recorded as well. The SVC variation was calculated before and after the fluid challenge. RESULTS: After the fluid challenge, the SVC diameter markedly increased, whereas the SVC variation and stroke volume variation significantly decreased (P < .05). The optimal cutoff value for the SVC variation was 21.1%, and the area under the curve (AUC) from a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was 0.849. The optimal cutoff value for the minimal SVC diameter was 1.135 cm, and that AUC was 0.929. In addition, the optimal cutoff value for the maximal SVC diameter was 1.480 cm, and the AUC was 0.862. CONCLUSIONS: The minimal SVC diameter may be an effective indicator for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing invasive positive pressure ventilation.
OBJECTIVES: Preoperative fasting, water deprivation, and intraoperative fluid loss and redistribution result in hypovolemia in patients undergoing surgery. Some findings have indicated that the superior vena cava (SVC) diameter and variation, as determined by transesophageal echocardiography during surgery, do not reflect central venous pressure effectively. This study aimed to compare and correlate the SVC diameter and variation with the stroke volume variation for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing invasive positive pressure ventilation. METHODS: Thirty-six patients scheduled for elective gastrointestinal surgery under general anesthesia with invasive positive pressure ventilation were included in this study. After anesthesia induction, the stroke volume variation, SVC diameter, mean arterial pressure, central venous pressure, and pulse were recorded, and measurements after fluid challenge were recorded as well. The SVC variation was calculated before and after the fluid challenge. RESULTS: After the fluid challenge, the SVC diameter markedly increased, whereas the SVC variation and stroke volume variation significantly decreased (P < .05). The optimal cutoff value for the SVC variation was 21.1%, and the area under the curve (AUC) from a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was 0.849. The optimal cutoff value for the minimal SVC diameter was 1.135 cm, and that AUC was 0.929. In addition, the optimal cutoff value for the maximal SVC diameter was 1.480 cm, and the AUC was 0.862. CONCLUSIONS: The minimal SVC diameter may be an effective indicator for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing invasive positive pressure ventilation.