| Literature DB >> 31482978 |
Fujuan He1, Xiaoqiang Li1, Suman Thapa1, Chi Li1, Jiawei Luo1, Wenyan Dai1, Jin Liu1.
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of tidal volume (TV) on the diagnostic value of pulse pressure variation (PPV) and the inferior vena cava dispensability index (IVC-DI) for volume responsiveness during mechanical ventilation. In patients undergoing elective surgery with mechanical ventilation, different TVs of 6, 9, and 12 mL/kg were given for two min. The left ventricular outflow tract velocity-time integral (VTI) was measured by transthoracic echocardiography. The IVC-DI was measured at sub-xyphoid transabdominal long axis. The PPV was measured via the radial artery and served as baseline. Index measurements were repeated after fluid challenge. VTI increased by more than 15% after fluid challenge, which was considered as volume responsive. Seventy-nine patients were enrolled, 38 of whom were considered positive volume responsive. Baseline data between the response group and the non-response group were similar. Receiver operating characteristic curve confirmed PPV accuracy in diagnosing an increase in volume responsiveness with increased TV. When TV was 12 mL/kg, the PPV area under the curve (AUC) was 0.93 and the threshold value was 15.5%. IVC-DI had the highest diagnostic accuracy at a TV of 9 mL/kg and an AUC of 0.79, with a threshold value of 15.3%. When TV increased to 12 mL/kg, the IVC-DI value decreased. When the TV was 9 and 12 mL/kg, PPV showed improved performance in diagnosing volume responsiveness than did IVC-DI. PPV diagnostic accuracy in mechanically ventilated patients was higher than IVC-DI. PPV accuracy in predicting volume responsiveness was increased by increasing TV.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31482978 PMCID: PMC6720221 DOI: 10.1590/1414-431X20198827
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Braz J Med Biol Res ISSN: 0100-879X Impact factor: 2.590
Figure 1.Inferior vena cava diameter at inspiration (top) and expiration (bottom) of a non-responsive group representative.
Figure 2.Inferior vena cava diameter at inspiration (top) and expiration (bottom) of a responsive group representative.
Figure 3.Flow chart of the study. TV: tidal volume.
Figure 4.Study diagram.
Patients' characteristics.
| Overall (n=79) | Responsive (n=38) | Non-responsive (n=41) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (means±SD, years) | 44.7±10.2 | 44.0±11.2 | 45.3±9.3 | 0.578 |
| Gender (n %) | 0.154 | |||
| Male | 29 (36.7) | 17 (21.5) | 12 (15.2) | |
| Female | 50 (63.3) | 21 (26.6) | 29 (36.7) | |
| History of Hypertension (n, %) | 3 (3.8) | 2 (2.5) | 1 (1.3) | 0.512 |
| History of Diabetes (n, %) | 1 (1.3) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.3) | 0.333 |
| Thyroid dysfunction (n, %) | 2 (2.6) | 1 (1.3) | 1 (1.3) | 0.957 |
| BMI (means±SD, kg/m2) | 22.5±2.7 | 22.6±2.7 | 22.4±2.6 | 0.669 |
| BMI≥25 kg/m2 (n, %) | 21 (26.6) | 9 (11.4) | 12 (15.2) | 0.575 |
| Type of surgery (n, %) | 0.266 | |||
| Urologic surgery | 71 (90.0) | 36 (45.6) | 35 (44.3) | |
| Breast surgery | 8 (10.1) | 2 (2.5) | 6 (7.6) | |
| HR (means±SD, bpm) | 79.1±11.4 | 81.6±11.7 | 76.9±10.8 | 0.068 |
| MAP (means±SD, mmHg) | 91.2±9.9 | 91.1±9.1 | 91.3±10.5 | 0.943 |
Continuous variables: Student's t-test (normal distribution) or Wilcoxon rank sum test (non-normal distribution) were used. Enumeration data: chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test were used. BMI: body mass index; HR: heart rate; MAP: mean arterial pressure.
Comparison between groups in the tidal volume of 6 mL/kg group.
| Responders (n=38) | P value | Non-Responders (n=41) | P value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before fluid challenge | After fluid challenge | Before fluid challenge | After fluid challenge | |||
| HR (bpm) | 66.1±11.3 | 59.0±8.1* | <0.001 | 60.5±8.3# | 56.1±6.9* | 0.002 |
| MAP (mmHg) | 70.6±9.7 | 71.7±9.8 | 0.561 | 71.2±9.8 | 69.1±8.0 | 0.206 |
| VTI (cm) | 18.3±3.0 | 22.0±3.4* | <0.001 | 20.4±3.0# | 20.9±3.1* | 0.022 |
| PPV (%) | 10.1±3.4 | 5.8±2.2* | <0.001 | 6.7±2.6# | 4.5±1.5* | <0.001 |
| IVC max (cm) | 1.7±0.3 | 2.0±0.2* | <0.001 | 1.8±0.3 | 2.0±0.3* | <0.001 |
| IVC min (cm) | 1.5±0.3 | 1.9±0.2* | <0.001 | 1.6±0.3# | 1.9±0.3* | <0.001 |
| IVC-DI (%) | 14.1±8.2 | 6.0±3.6* | <0.001 | 9.3±7.7# | 4.6±4.0* | <0.001 |
Data are reported as means±SD. Student's t-test (normal distribution) or Wilcoxon rank sum test (non-normal distribution) were used. *P<0.05 vs before fluid challenge; #P<0.05 vs responders. HR: heart rate; MAP: mean arterial pressure: VTI: velocity-time integral; PPV: pulse pressure variation; IVC: inferior vena cava variation; IVC-DI: inferior vena cava dispensability index.
Comparison between groups in tidal volume of 9 mL/kg group.
| Responders (n=38) | P value | Non-Responders (n=41) | P value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before fluid challenge | After fluid challenge | Before fluid challenge | After fluid challenge | |||
| HR (bpm) | 65.8±11.1 | 61.0±9.7* | 0.006 | 58.5±6.9# | 56.8±8.1 | 0.154 |
| MAP (mmHg) | 68.5±8.1 | 71.1±8.3 | 0.116 | 70.0±8.4 | 68.8±7.2 | 0.337 |
| VTI (cm) | 18.1±3.0 | 22.4±3.4* | <0.001 | 20.2±2.7# | 21.4±3.0* | <0.001 |
| PPV (%) | 15.6±4.7¶ | 7.3±2.8* | <0.001 | 8.4±2.8#¶ | 5.6±1.8* | <0.001 |
| IVC max (cm) | 1.8±0.2 | 2.1±0.3* | <0.001 | 1.8±0.3 | 2.1±0.3* | <0.001 |
| IVC min (cm) | 1.5±0.3 | 1.9±0.3* | <0.001 | 1.7±0.3# | 2.0±0.3* | <0.001 |
| IVC-DI (%) | 17.3±9.0¶ | 5.4±3.3* | <0.001 | 8.6±5.3# | 5.1±3.5* | <0.001 |
Data are reported as means±SD. Student's t-test (normal distribution) or Wilcoxon rank sum test (non-normal distribution) were used. *P<0.05 vs before fluid challenge; #P<0.05 vs responders, ¶P<0.05 vs tidal volume of 6 mL/kg (see Table 2). HR: heart rate; MAP: mean arterial pressure: VTI: velocity-time integral; PPV: pulse pressure variation; IVC: inferior vena cava variation; IVC-DI: inferior vena cava dispensability index.
Comparison between groups in tidal volume of 12 mL/kg group.
| Responders (n=38) | P value | Non-Responders (n=41) | P value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before fluid challenge | After fluid challenge | Before fluid challenge | After fluid challenge | |||
| HR (bpm) | 66.7±10.3 | 60.3±7.9* | <0.001 | 57.8±5.6# | 57.7±7.8 | 0.963 |
| MAP (mmHg) | 68.5±8.4 | 68.6±7.5 | 0.984 | 68.5±6.7 | 69.4±7.6 | 0.453 |
| VTI (cm) | 18.1±2.9 | 22.2±3.3* | <0.001 | 20.0±2.7# | 21.2±2.9* | <0.001 |
| PPV (%) | 20.4±6.0¶ | 9.3±3.5* | <0.001 | 11.0±3.5#¶ | 6.9±2.1* | <0.001 |
| IVC max (cm) | 1.8±0.2 | 2.1±0.3* | <0.001 | 1.9±0.3 | 2.1±0.2* | <0.001 |
| IVC min (cm) | 1.6±0.3 | 2.0±0.3* | <0.001 | 1.8±0.3# | 2.0±0.2* | <0.001 |
| IVC-DI (%) | 14.2±8.0¶ | 5.8±5.1* | <0.001 | 8.5±5.9# | 5.2±3.5* | <0.001 |
Data are reported as means±SD. Student's t-test (normal distribution) or Wilcoxon rank sum test (non-normal distribution) were used. *P<0.05 vs before fluid challenge; #P<0.05 vs responders; ¶P<0.05 vs tidal volume of 9 mL/kg (see Table 3). HR: heart rate; MAP: mean arterial pressure: VTI: velocity-time integral; PPV: pulse pressure variation; IVC: inferior vena cava variation; IVC-DI: inferior vena cava dispensability index.
Prediction of fluid responsiveness by the ROC curves of pulse pressure variation (PPV) and inferior vena cava dispensability index (IVC-DI) measured before fluid loading in different tidal volumes: 6, 9, and 12 mL/kg.
| TV | AUC (95% CI) | P value | Threshold value (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 mL/kg | |||||
| PPV | 0.79 (0.70, 0.89) | <0.001 | 8.5 | 55 | 83 |
| IVC-DI | 0.71 (0.60, 0.83) | 0.001 | 11.1 | 68 | 76 |
| 9 mL/kg | |||||
| PPV | 0.91 (0.85, 0.98) | <0.001 | 12.5 | 76 | 93 |
| IVC-DI | 0.79 (0.70, 0.89) | <0.001 | 15.3 | 55 | 88 |
| 12 mL/kg | |||||
| PPV | 0.93 (0.88, 0.99) | <0.001 | 15.5 | 87 | 90 |
| IVC-DI | 0.73 (0.62, 0.84) | 0.001 | 13.4 | 53 | 88 |
ROC curve: receiver operating characteristic curve; AUC: area under the ROC curve; TV: tidal volume.
Figure 5.Receiver operating curve (ROC) of pulse pressure variation (PPV) and inferior vena cava dispensability index (IVC-DI) of three tidal volumes: 6, 9, and 12 mL/kg.
Results of paired comparison among area under the ROC curve (AUC) by the Delong method.
| PPV6 | IVCDI6 | PPV9 | IVCDI9 | PPV12 | IVCDI12 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPV6 | –1.16 (0.246) | 2.80 (0.005) | 0 (0.996) | 2.72 (0.007) | -0.87 (0.385) | |
| IVC-DI6 | 3.52 (<0.001) | 1.87 (0.062) | 3.83 (<0.001) | 0.35 (0.729) | ||
| PPV9 | –2.28 (0.023) | 0.99 (0.32) | –3.06 (0.002) | |||
| IVC-DI9 | 2.74 (0.006) | –1.63 (0.103) | ||||
| PPV12 | –3.67 (<0.001) |
There are 6 rows and 7 columns in the matrix, which represents pairwise comparisons of the AUC areas of different indexes; the same index does not compare with itself. The z value is reported outside of the parentheses and the P value is within the parentheses. P<0.05 indicates that there was a significant difference, that is, the overall AUC area of the two indexes was different. Better performance can be seen according to the z value sign; i.e. the minus sign indicates that the column variable performed better, and vice versa.