Why the study?
Fluid therapy guidelines typically rely on indicators representative of preload rather than contractility, leaving open whether cardiac power index affects fluid responsiveness during postural hemodynamic changes.
Does cardiac power index (CPI) predict fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery in the prone position?
Does cardiac power index (CPI) predict fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery in the prone position?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
CPI may predict fluid responsiveness in prone spine surgery; leaves open whether it outperforms preload indices in larger trials.
Background Fluid therapy guidelines tend to be evaluated using indicators representative of preload, and they have yet to be assessed from the standpoint of contractility. We hypothesized that the cardiac power index (CPI) might affect fluid responsiveness in settings where postural change triggers hemodynamic changes. Methods Twenty-eight patients who underwent lumbar spine surgery in the prone position on a jack’s table were enrolled in this study. Hemodynamic variables were measured before and after the position change and after the colloid bolus (5 mg/kg) in the prone position. Fluid responsiveness was defined as an increase in the stroke volume index (SVI) ≥ 10%. Results After a position change, the responder's CPI (mean ± sd) significantly decreased after a change to the prone position (0.45 ± 0.04 W/m 2 vs. 0.34 ± 0.02 W/m 2 , p = 0.024). Cardiac index (CI, mean ± sd) decreased from 2.39 ± 0.15 l/min/m 2 to 1.95 ± 0.16 l/min/m 2 ( p = 0.045). CPI was 0.50 ± 0.04 W/m 2 in the non-responders and 0.34 ± 0.02 W/m 2 in the responders ( p = 0.002) in the prone position. After fluid loading, in the responder, CI increased from 1.95 ± 0.16l/min/m 2 to 2.22 ± 0.16l/min/m 2 ( p = 0.025), and SVI increased from 27.62 ± 2.2 ml/m 2 to 34.5 ± 2.06 ml/m 2 ( p = 0.001). CPI increased from 0.34 ± 0.02 W/m 2 to 0.4 ± 0.03 W/m 2 ( p = 0.045) in the responders. However, CI decreased from 2.5 ± 0.18l/min/m 2 to 2.29 ± 0.18 l/min/m 2 ( p = 0.009), and SVI (mean ± sd) decreased from 31.05 ± 1.78 ml/m 2 to 28.55 ± 1.63 ml/m 2 ( p = 0.004) in the non-responders. CPI decreased from 0.5 ± 0.04W/m 2 to 0.42 ± 0.03W/m 2 ( p = 0.015). The prone's CPI could predict fluid responsiveness under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.60–0.95; p = 0.025). An optimal cut-off value of CPI in the prone was < 0.43 W/m 2 (100% sensitivity and 65% specificity). Conclusion CPI may support and guide fluid management in the prone position. However, more data are required to confirm these findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
JY Min (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: