• Yukiko Hikasa, Satoshi Suzuki, Shunsuke Tanabe, Kazuhiro Noma, Yasuhiro Shirakawa, Toshiyoshi Fujiwara, and Hiroshi Morimatsu.
• Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1, Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan. yhikasa@ncc.go.jp.
• J Anesth. 2023 Dec 1; 37 (6): 930937930-937.

PurposeIt remains unknown whether stroke volume variation (SVV), pulse pressure variation (PPV), and dynamic arterial elastance (Eadyn) are suitable for monitoring fluid management during thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) in the prone position with one-lung ventilation and artificial pneumothorax. Our study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of SVV, PVV, and Eadyn in predicting the fluid responsiveness in these patients.MethodsWe recruited 24 patients who had undergone TE. Patients with a mean arterial blood pressure ≤ 65 mmHg received a 200-ml bolus of 6% hydroxyethyl starch over 10 min. Fluid responders showed the stroke volume index ≥ 15% 5 min after the fluid bolus. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated and area under the ROC curve (AUROC) was calculated.ResultsWe obtained 61 fluid bolus data points, of which 20 were responders and 41 were non-responders. The median SVV before the fluid bolus in responders was significantly higher than that in non-responders (18% [interquartile range (IQR) 13-21] vs. 12% [IQR 8-15], P = 0.001). Eadyn was significantly lower in responders than in non-responders (0.55 [IQR 0.45-0.78] vs. 0.91 [IQR 0.67-1.00], P < 0.001). There was no difference in the PPV between the groups. The AUROC was 0.76 for SVV (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.89, P = 0.001), 0.56 for PPV (95% CI 0.41-0.71, P = 0.44), and 0.82 for Eadyn (95% CI 0.69-0.95, P < 0.001).ConclusionsSVV and Eadyn are reliable parameters for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing TE.© 2023. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists.

16 keywords...

hide…