• Journal of critical care · Aug 2016

    Comparative Study

    Comparison between respiratory changes in the inferior vena cava diameter and pulse pressure variation to predict fluid responsiveness in postoperative patients.

    • Olivia Haun de Oliveira, FreitasFlávio Geraldo Rezende deFGDepartamento de Anestesiologia, Dor e Terapia Intensiva, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP 04024-900, Brazil. Electronic address: flaviogrf@yahoo.com.br., Renata Teixeira Ladeira, Claudio Henrique Fischer, Antônio Tonete Bafi, AzevedoLuciano Cesar PontesLCDepartamento de Anestesiologia, Dor e Terapia Intensiva, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP 04024-900, Brazil., and Flávia Ribeiro Machado.
    • Departamento de Anestesiologia, Dor e Terapia Intensiva, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP 04024-900, Brazil.
    • J Crit Care. 2016 Aug 1; 34: 46-9.

    PurposeThe objective of our study was to assess the reliability of the distensibility index of the inferior vena cava (dIVC) as a predictor of fluid responsiveness in postoperative, mechanically ventilated patients and compare its accuracy with that of the pulse pressure variation (PPV) measurement.Materials And MethodsWe included postoperative mechanically ventilated and sedated patients who underwent volume expansion with 500mL of crystalloids over 15minutes. A response to fluid infusion was defined as a 15% increase in the left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral according to transthoracic echocardiography. The inferior vena cava diameters were recorded by a subcostal view using the M-mode and the PPV by automatic calculation. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated for the baseline dIVC and PPV.ResultsTwenty patients were included. The area under the ROC curve for dIVC was 0.84 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.0), and the best cutoff value was 16% (sensitivity, 67%; specificity, 100%). The area under the ROC curve for PPV was 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.0), and the best cutoff was 12.4% (sensitivity, 89%; specificity, 100%). A noninferiority test showed that dIVC cannot replace PPV to predict fluid responsiveness (P=.28).ConclusionThe individual PPV discriminative properties for predicting fluid responsiveness in postoperative patients seemed superior to those of dIVC.Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.