• Ahmed M Mukhtar, Mohamed Elayashy, Amr H Sayed, Gihan M Obaya, Akram A Eladawy, Mai A Ali, Hisham M Dahab, Dina Z Khalaf, Mostafa A Mohamed, Amr H Elfouly, Gad M Behairy, and Amr A Abdelaal.
• Department of Anesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Al Saraya Street, Almanial, Cairo, Egypt. ahmed.mukhtar@kasralainy.edu.eg.
• J Clin Monit Comput. 2020 Apr 1; 34 (2): 271276271-276.

AbstractMajor hemodynamic changes are frequently noted during liver transplantation (LT). We evaluated the performance of electrical velocimetry (EV) as compared to that of TEE in SV optimization during liver transplantation. This was an observational study in 32 patients undergoing LT. We compared SV values measured simultaneously by EV (SVEV) and TEE (SVTEE) at baseline 30 min after induction, at the end of dissection phase, 30 min after anhepatic phase, 30 min after reperfusion. We also evaluated the reliability of EV to track changes In SV before and after 49 fluid challenges. Finally, the SV variation (SVV) and pulse pressure variation (PPV) were tested as predictors for volume responsiveness, defined as an increase in SV ≥ 10% after 250 ml of colloid. For 112 paired SV data, the overall correlation was 0.76 and bias (limits of agreement) 0.3 (- 29 to 29) ml percentage error 62%. The EV was able to track changes in SV with a concordance rate of 97%, and a sensitivity and specificity of 93% to detect a positive fluid challenge. The AUC values (with 95% confidence intervals) for SVV and PPV were 0.68 (0.52-0.83) and 0.72 (0.57-0.86), respectively, indicating low predictive capacity in these setting. The absolute values of SV derived from EV did not agree with SV derived from TEE. However, EV was able to track the direction of changes in SV during hemodynamic management of patients undergoing liver transplantation.Clinical trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03228329 prospectively Registered on 13-July-2017.

29 keywords...

hide…