Comparison of the Efficacy of Different Arterial Waveform-Derived Variables (Pulse Pressure Variation, Stroke Volume Variation, Systolic Pressure Variation) for Fluid Responsiveness in Hemodynamically Unstable Mechanically Ventilated Critically III Patients

被引:2
|
作者
Kumar, Nitish [1 ]
Malviya, Deepak [1 ]
Nath, Soumya S. [1 ]
Rastogi, Shivani [1 ]
Upadhyay, Vishal [1 ]
机构
[1] Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Inst Med Sci, Dept Anesthesiol & Crit Care Med, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
关键词
Cardiac index; Positive end expiratory pressure; Pulse pressure variation; Stroke volume variation; Systolic pressure variation; THERAPY;
D O I
10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23440
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Introduction:This study was conducted to assess fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients to avoid various complications of fluid overload. Material and methods: This study was done in an ICU of a tertiary care hospital after approval from the institute ethical committee over 18 months. A total of 54 consenting adult patients were included In the study. Patients were hemodynamically unstable requiring mechanical ventilation, had acute circulatory failure, or those with at least one clinical sign of inadequate tissue perfusion. All patients were ventilated using tidal volume of 6-8 ml/kg, RR-12-15/minutes, positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP)-5 cm of water, and plateau pressure was kept below 30 cm water. They were sedated throughout the study. The arterial line and the central venous catheter were placed and connected to Vigileo-FloTrac transducer (Edward Lifesciences). Patients were classified into responder and nonresponder groups on the basis of the cardiac Index (CI) after fluid challenge of 10 mL/kg of normal saline over 30 minutes. Pulse pressure variation (PPV), stroke volume variation (SW), and systolic pressure variation (SPV) were assessed and compared at baseline, 30 minutes, and 60 minutes. Results: in our study we found that PPV and SW were significantly lower among responders than nonresponders at 30 minutes and insignificant at 60 minutes. Stroke volume variation was 10.28 +/- 1.76 in the responder compared to 12.28 +/- 4.42 (p = 0.02) at 30 minutes and PPV was 15.28 +/- 6.94 in responders while It was 20.03 +/- 4.35 in nonresponders (p = 0.01). We found SPV was insignificant at all time periods among both groups. Conclusion: We can conclude that initial assessment for fluid responsiveness in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients should be based on PPV and SW to prevent complications of fluid overload and their consequences. Conclusion: We can conclude that initial assessment for fluid responsiveness in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients should be based on PPV and SW to prevent complications of fluid overload and their consequences.
引用
收藏
页码:48 / 53
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of stroke volume variation with pulse pressure variation as a diagnostic indicator of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients
    Hong, Jin-Quan
    He, He-Fan
    Chen, Zhi-Yuan
    Du, Zhen-Shuang
    Liu, Wei-Feng
    Weng, Pei-Qing
    Huang, Hao-Bo
    SAUDI MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2014, 35 (03) : 261 - 268
  • [2] Comparison of pulse pressure variation versus echocardiography-derived stroke volume variation for prediction of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated anesthetized dogs
    Goncalves, Lucas A.
    Otsuki, Denise A.
    Pereira, Marco A. A.
    Nagashima, Julio K.
    Ambrosio, Aline M.
    Fantoni, Denise T.
    VETERINARY ANAESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2020, 47 (01) : 28 - 37
  • [3] Stroke volume variation compared with pulse pressure variation and cardiac index changes for prediction of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients
    Soliman, Randa Aly
    Samir, Shereif
    el Naggar, Ayman
    El Dehely, Khalaf
    EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2015, 3 (01): : 9 - 16
  • [4] Pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients experiencing intra-abdominal hypertension
    Liu, Xiaomei
    Fu, Qiang
    Mi, Weidong
    Liu, Henian
    Zhang, Hong
    Wang, Peiji
    BIOSCIENCE TRENDS, 2013, 7 (02) : 101 - 108
  • [5] Comparison between pulse pressure variation and systolic pressure variation measured from a peripheral artery for accurately predicting fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated dogs
    Dalmagro, Tabata L.
    Teixeira-Neto, Francisco J.
    Celeita-Rodriguez, Nathalia
    Garofalo, Natache A.
    Lopez-Castaneda, Brayan
    do Nascimento-Junior, Paulo
    VETERINARY ANAESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2021, 48 (04) : 501 - 508
  • [6] Stroke volume variation (SVV) and pulse pressure variation (PPV) as indicators of fluid responsiveness in sevoflurane anesthetized mechanically ventilated euvolemic dogs
    Endo, Yusuke
    Tamura, Jun
    Ishizuka, Tomohito
    Itami, Takaharu
    Hanazono, Kiwamu
    Miyoshi, Kenjiro
    Sano, Tadashi
    Yamashita, Kazuto
    Muir, William W.
    JOURNAL OF VETERINARY MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2017, 79 (08): : 1437 - 1445
  • [7] Is the pulse pressure variation a good predictor of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with low tidal volume?
    C Costa
    S Vieira
    G Friedman
    L Fialkow
    Critical Care, 13 (Suppl 1):
  • [8] Assessing fluid responsiveness by the systolic pressure variation in mechanically ventilated patients - Systolic pressure variation as a guide to fluid therapy in patients with sepsis-induced hypotension
    Perel, A
    ANESTHESIOLOGY, 1998, 89 (06) : 1309 - 1310
  • [9] Predictive values of pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation for fluid responsiveness in patients with pneumoperitoneum
    Zlicar, Marko
    Novak-Jankovic, Vesna
    Blagus, Rok
    Cecconi, Maurizio
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MONITORING AND COMPUTING, 2018, 32 (05) : 825 - 832
  • [10] Predictive values of pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation for fluid responsiveness in patients with pneumoperitoneum
    Marko Zlicar
    Vesna Novak-Jankovic
    Rok Blagus
    Maurizio Cecconi
    Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, 2018, 32 : 825 - 832