• Glauco A Westphal, Eliezer Silva, Milton Caldeira Filho, Anderson R Roman Gonçalves, and Luiz F Poli-de-Figueiredo.
• Centro Hospitalar Unimed and School of Medicine of the University of Joinville (Univille), Joinville, Brazil. glauco.w@brturbo.com.br
• Shock. 2006 Aug 1;26(2):140-5.

AbstractWe tested the hypothesis that the dynamic evaluation of central venous pressure (CVP) amplitude could be a reliable predictor of fluid responsiveness in patients under mechanical ventilation, similar to the variation of arterial pulse pressure (DeltaPp). Thirty postcardiac surgery patients, under mechanical ventilation, were evaluated. The percentual difference between inspiratory (Ppins) and expiratory pulse pressure (Ppins) was so calculated: DeltaPp (%) = 100 x (Ppins - Ppexp)/[(Ppins + Ppexp)/2]. The respiratory variation of CVP curves amplitude were calculated by determining the percentual difference between inspiratory (CVPpins) and expiratory (CVPpexp) variation using vena cava "pressure" collapsibility index according the following formula: Cvci (%) = [(CVPpexp - CVPpins)/CVPpexp] x 100. There was a correlation between DeltaPp and Cvci (Pearson correlation coefficient, r = 0.45). Receiver operating characteristic curves showed that the Cvci value more than or equal to 5% predicted DeltaPp more than or equal to 13% with 91% specificity, 89% sensitivity, and AUC of 0.90. Therefore, Cvci presented a good agreement with DeltaPp (kappa = 0.76) to identify potential fluid responders (patients with DeltaPp > or =13%). In 9 potential fluid responders, both DeltaPp and Cvci significantly decreased from 18% +/- 8% to 8% +/- 6% (P < 0.004) and 23% +/- 15% to 7% +/- 6% (P < 0.004), respectively, after fluid replacement. Our findings suggest that vena cava "pressure" collapsibility index can be used as a marker of fluid responsiveness in postcardiac surgery patients under mechanical ventilation, such as arterial pulse pressure respiratory variation.

17 keywords...

hide…