Uncalibrated stroke volume variations are able to predict the hemodynamic effects of positive end-expiratory pressure in patients with acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome after liver transplantation.

Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Place Amélie Raba Léon, Bordeaux, France.
Anesthesiology (Impact Factor: 6.17). 09/2009; 111(4):855-62. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181b27fb2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) may reduce cardiac output and total hepatic blood flow after liver transplantation. Pulse pressure variation is useful in predicting the PEEP-induced decrease in cardiac output. The aim of the study was to examine the relationships between stroke volume variations (SVV) obtained with the Vigileo monitor (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA), and the hemodynamic effects of PEEP.
Over 2 yr, patients presenting an acute lung injury or an acute respiratory distress syndrome in the 72 h after liver transplantation were prospectively enrolled. Patients were monitored with a pulmonary artery catheter (stroke volume) and with the Vigileo system (stroke volume and SVV). Measurements were performed in duplicate, first during zero end-expiratory pressure and then 10 min after the addition of 10 cm H2O PEEP.
Twenty-six patients were included. Six patients were excluded from analysis. On PEEP, SVV and pulse pressure variation increased significantly and stroke volume decreased significantly. PEEP-induced changes in stroke volume measured by pulmonary artery catheter were significantly correlated with SVV (r = 0.69; P < 0.001) and pulse pressure variation on zero end-expiratory pressure (r = 0.66, P < 0.001). PEEP-induced decrease in stroke volume measured by pulmonary artery catheter > or = 15% was predicted by an SVV > 7% (sensitivity = 100%, specificity = 80%) and by a pulse pressure variation > 8% (sensitivity = 80%, specificity = 100%). PEEP-induced changes in stroke volume measured by pulmonary artery catheter and Vigileo device were correlated (r = 0.51, P < 0.005).
SVV obtained with Vigileo monitor is useful to predict decrease in stroke volume induced by PEEP. Moreover, this device is able to track changes in stroke volume induced by PEEP.

  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To predict fluid responsiveness by noninvasive methods in a pediatric critical care population. Prospective observational clinical trial. PICU in a tertiary care academic hospital. Thirty-one pediatric patients aged from 1 day to 13 years under mechanical ventilation and on catecholamine support. We tested three noninvasive methods to predict fluid responsiveness: an esophageal Doppler system (CardioQ), a pulse contour analysis algorithm system (LiDCOrapid), and respiratory variations in vena cava inferior diameter. Stroke volume index was measured by transthoracic echocardiography before and after fluid challenge to determine fluid responders. Infusion of 10 mL/kg hydroxyethylstarch 130/0.4. Predictability of fluid responsiveness was only found in Doppler peak velocity of descending aortal blood flow. Increased peak velocity with reduction after fluid bolus was predictive for nonresponding to IV fluid challenge. Sensitivity and specificity of peak velocity were 69% and 73%, respectively. The cut point was set at 135.5 cm/s. The lower the Doppler peak velocity, the higher was the probability for a fluid response. Neither stroke volume variations nor respiratory variations in vena cava inferior diameter during mechanical ventilation were useful in predicting fluid responsiveness in this pediatric patient population. None of the children had abdominal hypertension measured by bladder pressure. Dynamic preload variables such as stroke volume variation or respiratory variations in vena cava inferior diameter may not be useful for predicting fluid responsiveness in certain pediatric patient populations. Esophageal Doppler peak velocity was predictive of fluid responsiveness where a target value of more than 135,5 cm/s may be a signal to terminate further fluid challenges. This target value may be different in different age groups, as esophageal Doppler peak velocity varies with age.
    Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 02/2015; DOI:10.1097/PCC.0000000000000364 · 2.33 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The FloTrac/Vigileo™, introduced in 2005, uses arterial pressure waveform analysis to calculate cardiac output (CO) and stroke volume variation (SVV) without external calibration. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the performance of the system. Sixty-five full manuscripts on validation of CO measurements in humans, published in English, were retrieved; these included 2234 patients and 44 592 observations. have been analysed according to underlying patient conditions, that is, general critical illness and surgery as normodynamic conditions, cardiac and (post)cardiac surgery as hypodynamic conditions, and liver surgery and sepsis as hyperdynamic conditions, and subsequently released software versions. Eight studies compared SVV with other dynamic indices. CO, bias, precision, %error, correlation, and concordance differed among underlying conditions, subsequent software versions, and their interactions, suggesting increasing accuracy and precision, particularly in hypo- and normodynamic conditions. The bias and the trending capacity remain dependent on (changes in) vascular tone with most recent software. The SVV only moderately agreed with other dynamic indices, although it was helpful in predicting fluid responsiveness in 85% of studies addressing this. Since its introduction, the performance of uncalibrated FloTrac/Vigileo™ has improved particularly in hypo- and normodynamic conditions. A %error at or below 30% with most recent software allows sufficiently accurate and precise CO measurements and trending for routine clinical use in normo- and hypodynamic conditions, in the absence of large changes in vascular tone. The SVV may usefully supplement these measurements.
    BJA British Journal of Anaesthesia 01/2014; DOI:10.1093/bja/aet429 · 4.35 Impact Factor