• Alexandre Joosten, Céline Boudart, Jean-Louis Vincent, Frederic Vanden Eynden, Luc Barvais, Luc Van Obbergh, Joseph Rinehart, and Olivier Desebbe.
• From the Departments of Anesthesiology.
• Anesth. Analg. 2019 Jun 1; 128 (6): 114511511145-1151.

BackgroundPulse pressure variation (PPV) can be used to predict fluid responsiveness in anesthetized patients receiving controlled mechanical ventilation but usually requires dedicated advanced monitoring. Capstesia (Galenic App, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain) is a novel smartphone application that calculates PPV and cardiac output (CO) from a picture of the invasive arterial pressure waveform obtained from any monitor screen. The primary objective was to compare the ability of PPV obtained using the Capstesia (PPVCAP) and PPV obtained using a pulse contour analysis monitor (PPVPC) to predict fluid responsiveness. A secondary objective was to assess the agreement and the trending of CO values obtained with the Capstesia (COCAP) against those obtained with the transpulmonary bolus thermodilution method (COTD).MethodsWe studied 57 mechanically ventilated patients (tidal volume 8 mL/kg, positive end-expiratory pressure 5 mm Hg, respiratory rate adjusted to keep end tidal carbon dioxide [32-36] mm Hg) undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting. COTD, COCAP, PPVCAP, and PPVPC were measured before and after infusion of 5 mL/kg of a colloid solution. Fluid responsiveness was defined as an increase in COTD of >10% from baseline. The ability of PPVCAP and PPVPC to predict fluid responsiveness was analyzed using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC), the agreement between COCAP and COTD using a Bland-Altman analysis and the trending ability of COCAP compared to COTD after volume expansion using a 4-quadrant plot analysis.ResultsTwenty-eight patients were studied before surgical incision and 29 after sternal closure. There was no significant difference in the ability of PPVCAP and PPVPC to predict fluid responsiveness (AUROC 0.74 [95% CI, 0.60-0.84] vs 0.68 [0.54-0.80]; P = .30). A PPVCAP >8.6% predicted fluid responsiveness with a sensitivity of 73% (95% CI, 0.54-0.92) and a specificity of 74% (95% CI, 0.55-0.90), whereas a PPVPC >9.5% predicted fluid responsiveness with a sensitivity of 62% (95% CI, 0.42-0.88) and a specificity of 74% (95% CI, 0.48-0.90). When measured before surgery, PPV predicted fluid responsiveness (AUROC PPVCAP = 0.818 [P = .0001]; PPVPC = 0.794 [P = .0007]) but not when measured after surgery (AUROC PPVCAP = 0.645 [P = .19]; PPVPC = 0.552 [P = .63]). A Bland-Altman analysis of COCAP and COTD showed a mean bias of 0.3 L/min (limits of agreement: -2.8 to 3.3 L/min) and a percentage error of 60%. The concordance rate, corresponding to the proportion of CO values that changed in the same direction with the 2 methods, was poor (71%, 95% CI, 66-77).ConclusionsIn patients undergoing cardiac surgery, PPVCAP and PPVPC both weakly predict fluid responsiveness. However, COCAP is not a good substitute for COTD and cannot be used to assess fluid responsiveness.

31 keywords...

hide…