학술논문
Prediction of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated cardiac surgical patients: the performance of seven different functional hemodynamic parameters
Document Type
Report
Source
BMC Anesthesiology. May 22, 2018, Vol. 18 Issue 1
Subject
Language
English
ISSN
1471-2253
Abstract
Author(s): Michael T. Ganter[sup.1] , Martin Geisen[sup.2] , Sonja Hartnack[sup.3] , Omer Dzemali[sup.4] and Christoph K. Hofer[sup.2] Background The assessment of the patient's fluid status is a key element in [...]
Background Functional hemodynamic parameters such as stroke volume and pulse pressure variation (SVV and PPV) have been shown to be reliable predictors of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. Today, different minimally- and non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring systems measure functional hemodynamic parameters. Although some of these parameters are described by the same name, they differ in their measurement technique and thus may provide different results. We aimed to test the performance of seven functional hemodynamic parameters simultaneously in the same clinical setting. Methods Hemodynamic measurements were done in 30 cardiac surgery patients that were mechanically ventilated. Before and after a standardized intravenous fluid bolus, hemodynamics were measured by the following monitoring systems: PiCCOplus (SVV.sub.PiCCO, PPV.sub.PiCCO), LiDCO.sub.rapid (SVV.sub.LiDCO, PPV.sub.LiDCO), FloTrac (SVV.sub.FloTrac), Philips Intellivue (PPV.sub.Philips) and Masimo pulse oximeter (pleth variability index, PVI). Prediction of fluid responsiveness was tested by calculation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves including a gray zone approach and compared using Fisher's Z-Test. Results Fluid administration resulted in an increase in cardiac output, while all functional hemodynamic parameters decreased. A wide range of areas under the ROC-curve (AUC's) was observed: AUC-SVV.sub.PiCCO = 0.91, AUC-PPV.sub.PiCCO = 0.88, AUC-SVV.sub.LiDCO = 0.78, AUC-PPV.sub.LiDCO = 0.89, AUC-SVV.sub.FloTrac = 0.87, AUC-PPV.sub.Philips = 0.92 and AUC-PVI = 0.68. Optimal threshold values for prediction of fluid responsiveness ranged between 9.5 and 17.5%. Lowest threshold values were observed for SVV.sub.LiDCO, highest for PVI. Conclusion All functional hemodynamic parameters tested except for PVI showed that their use allows a reliable identification of potential fluid responders. PVI however, may not be suitable after cardiac surgery to predict fluid responsiveness. Trial registration NCT02571465, registered on October 7th, 2015 (retrospectively registered). Keywords: Stroke volume variation, Pulse pressure variation, Pleth variability index, Functional hemodynamic parameter, Pulse wave analysis
Background Functional hemodynamic parameters such as stroke volume and pulse pressure variation (SVV and PPV) have been shown to be reliable predictors of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. Today, different minimally- and non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring systems measure functional hemodynamic parameters. Although some of these parameters are described by the same name, they differ in their measurement technique and thus may provide different results. We aimed to test the performance of seven functional hemodynamic parameters simultaneously in the same clinical setting. Methods Hemodynamic measurements were done in 30 cardiac surgery patients that were mechanically ventilated. Before and after a standardized intravenous fluid bolus, hemodynamics were measured by the following monitoring systems: PiCCOplus (SVV.sub.PiCCO, PPV.sub.PiCCO), LiDCO.sub.rapid (SVV.sub.LiDCO, PPV.sub.LiDCO), FloTrac (SVV.sub.FloTrac), Philips Intellivue (PPV.sub.Philips) and Masimo pulse oximeter (pleth variability index, PVI). Prediction of fluid responsiveness was tested by calculation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves including a gray zone approach and compared using Fisher's Z-Test. Results Fluid administration resulted in an increase in cardiac output, while all functional hemodynamic parameters decreased. A wide range of areas under the ROC-curve (AUC's) was observed: AUC-SVV.sub.PiCCO = 0.91, AUC-PPV.sub.PiCCO = 0.88, AUC-SVV.sub.LiDCO = 0.78, AUC-PPV.sub.LiDCO = 0.89, AUC-SVV.sub.FloTrac = 0.87, AUC-PPV.sub.Philips = 0.92 and AUC-PVI = 0.68. Optimal threshold values for prediction of fluid responsiveness ranged between 9.5 and 17.5%. Lowest threshold values were observed for SVV.sub.LiDCO, highest for PVI. Conclusion All functional hemodynamic parameters tested except for PVI showed that their use allows a reliable identification of potential fluid responders. PVI however, may not be suitable after cardiac surgery to predict fluid responsiveness. Trial registration NCT02571465, registered on October 7th, 2015 (retrospectively registered). Keywords: Stroke volume variation, Pulse pressure variation, Pleth variability index, Functional hemodynamic parameter, Pulse wave analysis