The role of stroke volume variation in predicting the volume responsiveness of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock

Chinese Journal of Emergency Medicine

Volumn 19, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 916-920

  Huang, Lei ^a   Zhang, Wei Xing ^a   Cai, Wen Xun ^a   Luo, Hua ^a   Chen, Ting Qua ^a   Zhang, Sheng ^a  

^a PEKING UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Cardiac index; Central venous pressure; Hemodynamic; Mechanical ventilation; Severe sepsis and septic shock; Stroke volume variation; Volume challenge; Volume responsiveness

Indexed keywords

EID: 77957985448     PISSN: 16710282     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0282.2010.09.004     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Osman D, Ridel C, Ray P, et al. Cardiac filfing pressures are not appropriate to predict nomodynamic response to volume challenge [J]. Crit Care Med, 2007, 35(1): 64-68. (Pubitemid 46035678)
2. Monnet X, Teboul JL. Volume responsiveness [J]. Curr Opin Crit Care, 2007, 13(5): 549-553.
3. Durairaj L, Schmidt GA. Fluid therapy in resuscitated sepsis: less is more [J]. Chest, 2008, 133(1):252-263.
4. Zimmermann M, Feibicke T, Keyl C, et al. Accuracy of stroke volume variation compared with pleth variability index to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients undergoing major surgery [J]. Eur J Anaesthesiol, 2010, 27(6):555-561.
5. Hofer CK, Senn A, Weibel L, et al. Assessment of stroke volume variation for prediction of fluid responsiveness using the modified FloTracTM and PiCCOplusTM system [J]. Critcal Care, 2008, 12(3):82. (Pubitemid 351974298)
6. Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, et al. 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference [J]. Crit Care Med, 2003, 31 (4): 1250-1256. (Pubitemid 36444440)
7. van Lelyveld-Haas LE, van Zanten AR, Borm GF, et al. Clinical validation of the non-invasive cardiac output monitor USCOM-IA in critically ill patients [J]. Eur J Anesthesiol, 2008, 25(11):917-924.
8. Phillips R, Lichtenthal P, Sloniger J, et al. Noninvasive cardiac output measurement in heart failure subjects on circulatory support [J]. Anesth Analg, 2009, 108(3): 881-886.
9. Marik PE, Baram M, Vahid B. Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness ? : A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares [J]. Chest, 2008, 134(1):172-178.
10. Cavaflaro F, Sandroni C, Antonelli M. Functional hemodynamic monitoring and dynamic indices of fluid responsiveness [J]. Minerva Anestesiol, 2008, 74(4): 123-135. (Pubitemid 351597303)
11. Cannesson M, Musard H, Desebbe O, et al. The ability of stroke volume variations obtained with Vigileo/FloTrac System to monitor fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients [J]. Anesth Analg, 2009, 108(2): 513-517.
12. Corley A, Bamett AG, Mulfany D, et al. Nurse-determined assessment of cardiac output. Comparing a non-invasive cardiac output device and pulmonary artery catheter: A prospective observational study [J]. international Journal of Nursing Studies, 2009, 46(10): 1291-1297.
13. Pemer A, Faber T. Stroke volume variation does not predict fluid responsiveness in patients with septic shock on pressure support ventilation [J]. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand, 2006, 50(9): 1068-1073. (Pubitemid 44434744)
14. Kubitz JC, Annecke T, Kemming GI, et al. The influence of positive end-expiratory pressure on stroke volume variation and central blood volume during open and closed chest conditions [J]. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2006, 30(1): 90-95. (Pubitemid 43850339)
15. De Backer D, Taccone FS, Holsten R, et al. Influence of respiratory rate on stroke volume variation in mechanically ventilated patients [J]. Anesthesiology, 2009, 110(5): 1092-1097.