Noninvasive pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation to predict fluid responsiveness at multiple thresholds: a prospective observational study;Mesures non invasives des variations de pression différentielle et de volume d’éjection pour prédire la réponse liquidienne à plusieurs seuils: une étude observationnelle prospective

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia

Volumn 62, Issue 11, 2015, Pages 1153-1160

  Vos, Jaap Jan ^a   Poterman, Marieke ^a   Salm, Pieternel Papineau ^a   Van Amsterdam, Kai ^a   Struys, Michel M R F ^a   Scheeren, Thomas W L ^a   Kalmar, Alain F ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b Maria Middelares Hospital   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HETASTARCH;

ADULT; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL VENTILATION; CARDIOVASCULAR DIAGNOSTIC DEVICE; CARDIOVASCULAR MONITORING DEVICE; CLAMP; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEMALE; FINGER CUFF; FLUID RESPONSIVENESS; GENERAL SURGERY; HEART STROKE VOLUME; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NON INVASIVE PROCEDURE; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PLETHYSMOGRAPHY; PREDICTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PULSE PRESSURE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; STROKE VOLUME INDEX; TREATMENT RESPONSE; VOLUME CLAMP DEVICE; VOLUME CLAMP PLETHYSMOGRAPHY; BLOOD PRESSURE; FLUID THERAPY; GENERAL ANESTHESIA; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSIOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SURGERY;

ANESTHESIA, GENERAL; BLOOD PRESSURE; FEMALE; FLUID THERAPY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESPIRATION, ARTIFICIAL; ROC CURVE; STROKE VOLUME; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE;

EID: 84943355591     PISSN: 0832610X     EISSN: 14968975     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12630-015-0464-2     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Marik PE, Cavallazzi R, Vasu T, Hirani A. Dynamic changes in arterial waveform derived variables and fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review of the literature. Crit Care Med 2009; 37: 2642-7.
2. Pinsky MR. Heart lung interactions during mechanical ventilation. Curr Opin Crit Care 2012; 18: 256-60.
3. Osman D, Ridel C, Ray P, et al. Cardiac filling pressures are not appropriate to predict hemodynamic response to volume challenge. Crit Care Med 2007; 35: 64-8.
4. Michard F, Teboul JL. Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: a critical analysis of the evidence. Chest 2002; 121: 2000-8.
5. Hofer CK, Cecconi M, Marx G, della Rocca G. Minimally invasive haemodynamic monitoring. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2009; 26: 996-1002.
6. Vos JJ, Poterman M, Mooyaart EA, et al. Comparison of continuous non-invasive finger arterial pressure monitoring with conventional intermittent automated arm arterial pressure measurement in patients under general anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2014; 113: 67-74.
7. Chen G, Meng L, Alexander B, Tran NP, Kain ZN, Cannesson M. Comparison of noninvasive cardiac output measurements using the Nexfin monitoring device and the esophageal Doppler. J Clin Anesth 2012; 24: 275-83.
8. Bogert LW, Wesseling KH, Schraa O, et al. Pulse contour cardiac output derived from non-invasive arterial pressure in cardiovascular disease. Anaesthesia 2010; 65: 1119-25.
9. Vos JJ, Kalmar AF, Struys MM, Wietasch JK, Hendriks HG, Scheeren TW. Comparison of arterial pressure and plethysmographic waveform-based dynamic preload variables in assessing fluid responsiveness and dynamic arterial tone in patients undergoing major hepatic resection. Br J Anaesth 2013; 110: 940-6.
10. Lansdorp B, Ouweneel D, de Keijzer A, van der Hoeven JG, Lemson J, Pickkers P. Non-invasive measurement of pulse pressure variation and systolic pressure variation using a finger cuff corresponds with intra-arterial measurement. Br J Anaesth 2011; 107: 540-5.
11. 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. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010; 27: 555-61.
12. Cannesson M, Le Manach Y, Hofer CK, et al. Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of pulse pressure variations for the prediction of fluid responsiveness: a “gray zone” approach. Anesthesiology 2011; 115: 231-41.
13. Guinot PG, de Broca B, Bernard E, Abou Arab O, Lorne E, Dupont H. Respiratory stroke volume variation assessed by oesophageal Doppler monitoring predicts fluid responsiveness during laparoscopy. Br J Anaesth 2014; 112: 660-4.
14. Ray P, Le Manach Y, Riou B, Houle TT. Statistical evaluation of a biomarker. Anesthesiology 2010; 112: 1023-40.
15. Wyffels PA, Sergeant P, Wouters PF. The value of pulse pressure and stroke volume variation as predictors of fluid responsiveness during open chest surgery. Anaesthesia 2010; 65: 704-9.
16. Martina JR, Westerhof BE, van Goudoever J, et al. Noninvasive continuous arterial blood pressure monitoring with Nexfin(R). Anesthesiology 2012; 116: 1092-103.
17. Thiele RH, Bartels K, Gan TJ. Inter-device differences in monitoring for goal-directed fluid therapy. Can J Anesth 2015; 62: 169-81.
18. Sing T, Sander O, Beerenwinkel N, Lengauer T. ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R. Bioinformatics 2005; 21: 3940-1.
19. ©The R Foundation. The R Project for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria - 2012. Available from URL: http://www.R-project.org (accessed April 2015).
20. Monnet X, Dres M, Ferre A, et al. Prediction of fluid responsiveness by a continuous non-invasive assessment of arterial pressure in critically ill patients: comparison with four other dynamic indices. Br J Anaesth 2012; 109: 330-8.
21. Solus-Biguenet H, Fleyfel M, Tavernier B, et al. Non-invasive prediction of fluid responsiveness during major hepatic surgery. Br J Anaesth 2006; 97: 808-16.
22. Nordstrom J, Hallsjo-Sander C, Shore R, Bjorne H. Stroke volume optimization in elective bowel surgery: a comparison between pulse power wave analysis (LiDCOrapid) and oesophageal Doppler (CardioQ). Br J Anaesth 2013; 110: 374-80.
23. De Hert SG. Assessment of fluid responsiveness: insights in a “gray zone”. Anesthesiology 2011; 115: 229-30.
24. Stover JF, Stocker R, Lenherr R, et al. Noninvasive cardiac output and blood pressure monitoring cannot replace an invasive monitoring system in critically ill patients. BMC Anesthesiol 2009; 9: 6.
25. Fischer MO, Avram R, Carjaliu I, et al. Non-invasive continuous arterial pressure and cardiac index monitoring with Nexfin after cardiac surgery. Br J Anaesth 2012; 109: 514-21.
26. Broch O, Renner J, Gruenewald M, et al. A comparison of the Nexfin(R) and transcardiopulmonary thermodilution to estimate cardiac output during coronary artery surgery. Anaesthesia 2012; 67: 377-83.
27. Fischer MO, Coucoravas J, Truong J, et al. Assessment of changes in cardiac index and fluid responsiveness: a comparison of Nexfin and transpulmonary thermodilution. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2013; 57: 704-12.
28. Bubenek-Turconi SI, Craciun M, Miclea I, Perel A. Noninvasive continuous cardiac output by the Nexfin before and after preload-modifying maneuvers: a comparison with intermittent thermodilution cardiac output. Anesth Analg 2013; 117: 366-72.
29. Critchley LA, Lee A, Ho AM. A critical review of the ability of continuous cardiac output monitors to measure trends in cardiac output. Anesth Analg 2010; 111: 1180-92.
30. Cannesson M, Le Manach Y. Noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring: no high heels on the farm; no clogs to the opera. Anesthesiology 2012; 117: 937-9.
31. Maguire S, Rinehart J, Vakharia S, Cannesson M. Technical communication: respiratory variation in pulse pressure and plethysmographic waveforms: intraoperative applicability in a North American academic center. Anesth Analg 2011; 112: 94-6.
32. Lansdorp B, Lemson J, van Putten MJ, de Keijzer A, van der Hoeven JG, Pickkers P. Dynamic indices do not predict volume responsiveness in routine clinical practice. Br J Anaesth 2012; 108: 395-401.