Lucas A Gonçalves1, Denise A Otsuki2, Marco Aa Pereira3, Julio K Nagashima3, Aline M Ambrosio3, Denise T Fantoni3. 1. Department of Surgery, School of Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnics (FMVZ), University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Electronic address: lalaiao@usp.br. 2. Laboratório de Investigação Médica 08 - Anestesiologia, Hospital das Clínicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. 3. Department of Surgery, School of Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnics (FMVZ), University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability and accuracy of aortic flow velocity-time integral variation (ΔVTI) and peak aortic velocity variation (ΔVpeak) compared with pulse pressure variation (PPV) to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective clinical study. ANIMALS: A group of 50 mechanically ventilated dogs with spontaneous hypotension during orthopedic or oncologic surgery. METHODS: Investigations were performed in the surgery room. When mean arterial pressure (MAP) decreased to <65 mmHg, measurements were performed before and after a fluid challenge (lactated Ringer's solution 5 mL kg-1 over 15 minutes). Responders were defined as a change in stroke volume (SV; transesophageal Doppler) ≥15%. Data were analyzed using paired/unpaired t test or Mann-Whitney/Wilcoxon test when appropriate and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves; a p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: After the fluid challenge, 35 (70%) of 50 dogs were responders with significant increases in SV and decreases in PPV; 15 dogs were nonresponders. ΔVTI and ΔVpeak correlated with a 15% increase in SV. The optimum cut-off value for PPV was 15.6% (sensitivity, 88%; specificity, 100%), for ΔVTI was 10.65% (sensitivity, 65%; specificity, 100%) and for ΔVpeak was 10.15% (sensitivity, 80%; specificity, 100%). The area under the ROC curve for PPV was (0.93 ± 0.08) and for ΔVpeak was (0.89 ± 0.09), before fluid challenge. The gray zone area spread from 6.15% to 15.6% for PPV (18 dogs), 2.45% to 10.65% for ΔVTI (22 dogs) and 0.6% to 10.15% for ΔVpeak (25 dogs). CONCLUSIONS: When using mechanical ventilation, ΔVTI and ΔVpeak predicted fluid responsiveness with the same ability as PPV, based on the area under the ROC curve analysis. However, PPV showed great accuracy demonstrated by a narrower gray zone that included fewer individuals. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: ΔVTI and ΔVpeak can be used as indices of fluid responsiveness in anesthetized dogs.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability and accuracy of aortic flow velocity-time integral variation (ΔVTI) and peak aortic velocity variation (ΔVpeak) compared with pulse pressure variation (PPV) to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective clinical study. ANIMALS: A group of 50 mechanically ventilated dogs with spontaneous hypotension during orthopedic or oncologic surgery. METHODS: Investigations were performed in the surgery room. When mean arterial pressure (MAP) decreased to <65 mmHg, measurements were performed before and after a fluid challenge (lactated Ringer's solution 5 mL kg-1 over 15 minutes). Responders were defined as a change in stroke volume (SV; transesophageal Doppler) ≥15%. Data were analyzed using paired/unpaired t test or Mann-Whitney/Wilcoxon test when appropriate and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves; a p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: After the fluid challenge, 35 (70%) of 50 dogs were responders with significant increases in SV and decreases in PPV; 15 dogs were nonresponders. ΔVTI and ΔVpeak correlated with a 15% increase in SV. The optimum cut-off value for PPV was 15.6% (sensitivity, 88%; specificity, 100%), for ΔVTI was 10.65% (sensitivity, 65%; specificity, 100%) and for ΔVpeak was 10.15% (sensitivity, 80%; specificity, 100%). The area under the ROC curve for PPV was (0.93 ± 0.08) and for ΔVpeak was (0.89 ± 0.09), before fluid challenge. The gray zone area spread from 6.15% to 15.6% for PPV (18 dogs), 2.45% to 10.65% for ΔVTI (22 dogs) and 0.6% to 10.15% for ΔVpeak (25 dogs). CONCLUSIONS: When using mechanical ventilation, ΔVTI and ΔVpeak predicted fluid responsiveness with the same ability as PPV, based on the area under the ROC curve analysis. However, PPV showed great accuracy demonstrated by a narrower gray zone that included fewer individuals. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: ΔVTI and ΔVpeak can be used as indices of fluid responsiveness in anesthetized dogs.