Comparison of pulse pressure and stroke volume variations measured by three monitors in high-risk surgical patients

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216224%3A14110%2F24%3A00138848" target="_blank" >RIV/00216224:14110/24:00138848 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240584402415791X" target="_blank" >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240584402415791X</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39760" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39760</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Comparison of pulse pressure and stroke volume variations measured by three monitors in high-risk surgical patients

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Introduction Dynamic indices of fluid responsiveness (FR) such as pulse pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV) differ among hemodynamic monitors, which use proprietary algorithms, and vary even over a short period of time. We aimed to compare the baseline values, fluctuation and predictive value for FR of PPV and SVV measured by three minimally invasive monitors. Patients and methods Twenty patients undergoing high-risk abdominal surgery were included and 45 fluid challenges were analysed. The patients were simultaneously monitored using Carescape B650, LiDCO Rapid and FloTrac/Vigileo system. Cardiac output (CO), PPV and SVV were recorded before and after the fluid challenge of 500 ml of balanced crystalloid solution. An increase in CO ≥ 15 % defined fluid responders. Concurrently recorded arterial waveform was used for offline calculation of PPV. Results Mean baseline values of the indices ranged between 8.6 % and 13.4 %. LiDCO showed higher fluctuation of indices compared to the other monitors. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) ranged from 0.71 to 0.76 with optimal cut-off value between 7.5 % and 13.9 %. AUROC increased for all indices when FR was defined as an increase in stroke volume. Furthermore, a decrease in PPV or SVV after fluid challenge (ΔPPV, ΔSVV) proved a better marker of FR (AUROC 0.82–0.93) than baseline values with a uniform threshold of approximately −3%. Conclusions Although a significant range of baselines variations and optimal cut-off values was observed, the predictive value of PPV and SVV from all the monitors was only moderate and comparable. Nevertheless, ΔPPV and ΔSVV appear to be a reliable and device-independent markers of FR.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Comparison of pulse pressure and stroke volume variations measured by three monitors in high-risk surgical patients

Popis výsledku anglicky

Introduction Dynamic indices of fluid responsiveness (FR) such as pulse pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV) differ among hemodynamic monitors, which use proprietary algorithms, and vary even over a short period of time. We aimed to compare the baseline values, fluctuation and predictive value for FR of PPV and SVV measured by three minimally invasive monitors. Patients and methods Twenty patients undergoing high-risk abdominal surgery were included and 45 fluid challenges were analysed. The patients were simultaneously monitored using Carescape B650, LiDCO Rapid and FloTrac/Vigileo system. Cardiac output (CO), PPV and SVV were recorded before and after the fluid challenge of 500 ml of balanced crystalloid solution. An increase in CO ≥ 15 % defined fluid responders. Concurrently recorded arterial waveform was used for offline calculation of PPV. Results Mean baseline values of the indices ranged between 8.6 % and 13.4 %. LiDCO showed higher fluctuation of indices compared to the other monitors. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) ranged from 0.71 to 0.76 with optimal cut-off value between 7.5 % and 13.9 %. AUROC increased for all indices when FR was defined as an increase in stroke volume. Furthermore, a decrease in PPV or SVV after fluid challenge (ΔPPV, ΔSVV) proved a better marker of FR (AUROC 0.82–0.93) than baseline values with a uniform threshold of approximately −3%. Conclusions Although a significant range of baselines variations and optimal cut-off values was observed, the predictive value of PPV and SVV from all the monitors was only moderate and comparable. Nevertheless, ΔPPV and ΔSVV appear to be a reliable and device-independent markers of FR.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30223 - Anaesthesiology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2024

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

HELIYON

ISSN

2405-8440

e-ISSN

2405-8440

Svazek periodika

10

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

22

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

10

Strana od-do

1-10

Kód UT WoS článku

999

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85208672989