Why the study?
Do pulse pressure variation (PPV) indices perform better than stroke volume variation (SVV) indices for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing liver surgery?
Do pulse pressure variation (PPV) indices perform better than stroke volume variation (SVV) indices for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing liver surgery?
Pulse pressure variation (PPV) is a more reliable and computationally feasible index than stroke volume variation (SVV) for predicting fluid responsiveness during liver surgery.
May favor PPV for fluid responsiveness in liver surgery; leaves open randomized confirmation versus SVV.
The expected response to fluid infusion is an increase of cardiac output (CO), and this response depends mostly on the current cardiac function of the patient. The importance of the prediction of fluid responsiveness (FR) is based on the fact that fluid loading in hemodynamic unstable patients may be hazardous and dangerous, e.g., by exposing them to the risk of developing pulmonary edema. The objective of this work is to improve the knowledge about the performance of the indices of FR prediction in association with different classification approaches in a particular setting, i.e., liver surgery. The specific aims are (1) the comparison of different CO estimators from invasive arterial blood pressure (ABP) measurement with particular attention to the assessment of CO variation after fluid administration and (2) the comparison of several indices for the prediction of FR to maneuvers classified from the CO measurements provided by a commercial monitor (PiCCO™, Pulsion Medical System, Munich, Germany). The main finding of this work is that pulse pressure variation (PPV) indices are more reliable and computationally feasible than stroke volume variation (SVV) indices. The PPV provided by PiCCO has the best performance in terms of area under curve, sensitivity, and specificity (0.92, 0.88, and 0.86, respectively), when the maneuvers are classified according to the maximum values of CO variation estimated during the second and third minutes after infusion. Moreover, PPVPiCCO is significantly correlated with the CO variation after infusion (rho = 0.51, p value < 0.05). The threshold values produced by the PPV indices (PPV = 13.9% and PPVPiCCO = 14.4%) are in agreement with the literature. From these observations, we conclude that the PPV index can be considered most suitable for the prediction of FR in liver surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ferrario et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: