Why the study?
Does stroke volume variation measured with uncalibrated arterial waveform analysis accurately predict fluid responsiveness in patients with impaired left ventricular function undergoing CABG?
Does stroke volume variation measured with uncalibrated arterial waveform analysis accurately predict fluid responsiveness in patients with impaired left ventricular function undergoing CABG?
Uncalibrated arterial waveform analysis of stroke volume variation has low diagnostic accuracy for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with impaired left ventricular function.
SVV by FloTrac shows limited accuracy (64%) in impaired LV function; leaves open its clinical utility pending larger validation studies.
Uncalibrated arterial waveform analysis enables dynamic preload assessment in a minimally invasive fashion. Evidence about the validity of the technique in patients with impaired left ventricular function is scarce, while adequate cardiac preload assessment would be of great value in these patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of stroke volume variation (SVV) measured with the FloTrac/Vigileo™ system in patients with impaired left ventricular function. In this prospective, observational study, 22 patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40 % or less undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting were included. Patients were considered fluid responsive if cardiac output increased with 15 % or more after volume loading (7 ml kg(-1) ideal body weight). The following variables were calculated: area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve, ideal cut-off value for SVV, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and overall accuracy. In addition, SVV cut-off points to obtain 90 % true positive and 90 % true negative predictions were determined. ROC analysis revealed an area under the curve of 0.70 [0.47; 0.92]. The ideal SVV cut-off value was 10 %, with a corresponding sensitivity and specificity of 56 and 69 % respectively. Overall accuracy was 64 %, positive and negative predictive values were 69 and 56 % respectively. SVV values to obtain more than 90 % true positive and negative predictions were 16 and 6 % respectively. The ability of uncalibrated arterial waveform analysis SVV to predict fluid responsiveness in patients with impaired LVF was low.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Montenij et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: