» Articles » PMID: 23161359

Predictive Value of Pulse Pressure Variation for Fluid Responsiveness in Septic Patients Using Lung-protective Ventilation Strategies

Overview
Journal Br J Anaesth
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty Anesthesiology
Date 2012 Nov 20
PMID 23161359
Citations 24
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The applicability of pulse pressure variation (ΔPP) to predict fluid responsiveness using lung-protective ventilation strategies is uncertain in clinical practice. We designed this study to evaluate the accuracy of this parameter in predicting the fluid responsiveness of septic patients ventilated with low tidal volumes (TV) (6 ml kg(-1)).

Methods: Forty patients after the resuscitation phase of severe sepsis and septic shock who were mechanically ventilated with 6 ml kg(-1) were included. The ΔPP was obtained automatically at baseline and after a standardized fluid challenge (7 ml kg(-1)). Patients whose cardiac output increased by more than 15% were considered fluid responders. The predictive values of ΔPP and static variables [right atrial pressure (RAP) and pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP)] were evaluated through a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

Results: Thirty-four patients had characteristics consistent with acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome and were ventilated with high levels of PEEP [median (inter-quartile range) 10.0 (10.0-13.5)]. Nineteen patients were considered fluid responders. The RAP and PAOP significantly increased, and ΔPP significantly decreased after volume expansion. The ΔPP performance [ROC curve area: 0.91 (0.82-1.0)] was better than that of the RAP [ROC curve area: 0.73 (0.59-0.90)] and pulmonary artery occlusion pressure [ROC curve area: 0.58 (0.40-0.76)]. The ROC curve analysis revealed that the best cut-off for ΔPP was 6.5%, with a sensitivity of 0.89, specificity of 0.90, positive predictive value of 0.89, and negative predictive value of 0.90.

Conclusions: Automatized ΔPP accurately predicted fluid responsiveness in septic patients ventilated with low TV.

Citing Articles

Assessment of fluid responsiveness using pulse pressure variation, stroke volume variation, plethysmographic variability index, central venous pressure, and inferior vena cava variation in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation: a systematic....

Chaves R, Barbas C, Queiroz V, Serpa Neto A, Deliberato R, Pereira A Crit Care. 2024; 28(1):289.

PMID: 39217370 PMC: 11366151. DOI: 10.1186/s13054-024-05078-9.


Does tidal volume challenge improve the feasibility of pulse pressure variation in patients mechanically ventilated at low tidal volumes? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wang X, Liu S, Gao J, Zhang Y, Huang T Crit Care. 2023; 27(1):45.

PMID: 36732851 PMC: 9893685. DOI: 10.1186/s13054-023-04336-6.


Tidal volume challenge to predict preload responsiveness in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome under prone position.

Shi R, Ayed S, Moretto F, Azzolina D, De Vita N, Gavelli F Crit Care. 2022; 26(1):219.

PMID: 35850771 PMC: 9294836. DOI: 10.1186/s13054-022-04087-w.


Correlation between Carotid and Brachial Artery Velocity Time Integral and Their Comparison to Pulse Pressure Variation and Stroke Volume Variation for Assessing Fluid Responsiveness.

Joshi M, Dhakane P, Bhosale S, Phulambrikar R, Kulkarni A Indian J Crit Care Med. 2022; 26(2):179-184.

PMID: 35712738 PMC: 8857717. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24115.


Ability of dynamic preload indices to predict fluid responsiveness in a high femoral-to-radial arterial pressure gradient: a retrospective study.

Kim S, Kim S, Lee H, Park G, Yoon E, Heo S Anesth Pain Med (Seoul). 2022; 16(4):360-367.

PMID: 35139617 PMC: 8828628. DOI: 10.17085/apm.21001.


References
1.
Perel A . Automated assessment of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. Anesth Analg. 2008; 106(4):1031-3. DOI: 10.1213/ane.0b013e318167abe5. View

2.
Auler Jr J, Galas F, Hajjar L, Santos L, Carvalho T, Michard F . Online monitoring of pulse pressure variation to guide fluid therapy after cardiac surgery. Anesth Analg. 2008; 106(4):1201-6, table of contents. DOI: 10.1213/01.ane.0000287664.03547.c6. View

3.
Marik P, 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(9):2642-7. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a590da. View

4.
Matthay M, Zimmerman G, Esmon C, Bhattacharya J, Coller B, Doerschuk C . Future research directions in acute lung injury: summary of a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003; 167(7):1027-35. DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200208-966WS. View

5.
Wiesenack C, Fiegl C, Keyser A, Prasser C, Keyl C . Assessment of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated cardiac surgical patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005; 22(9):658-65. DOI: 10.1017/s0265021505001092. View