Why the study?
Up to 20% of patients remain in the gray zone of MFC-ΔSVI%, prompting evaluation of whether MFC-ΔCPI% and baseline PPV and SVV better predict fluid responsiveness.
Do changes in stroke volume index and cardiac power index during a mini fluid challenge predict fluid responsiveness more accurately than baseline pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation?
Do changes in stroke volume index and cardiac power index during a mini fluid challenge predict fluid responsiveness more accurately than baseline pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation?
The percentage changes in stroke volume index and cardiac power index during a mini fluid challenge are more accurate predictors of fluid responsiveness than baseline stroke volume variation and pulse pressure variation.
MFC-ΔSVI% and MFC-ΔCPI% may better predict fluid responsiveness than PPV/SVV; leaves open need for RCTs before practice change.
Background/aim: The percentage change in the stroke volume index (SVI) due to the mini fluid challenge (MFC) (MFC-ΔSVI%) is used commonly in daily practice. However, up to 20% of patients remain in the gray zone of this variable. Thus, it was aimed to compare the MFC-ΔSVI% and the percentage change in the cardiac power index (CPI) due to the MFC (MFC-ΔCPI%) with the baseline values of the pulse pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV) in terms of their abilities to predict fluid responsiveness. Materials and methods: The SVI, CPI, SVV, and PPV were recorded before 100 mL of isotonic saline was infused (MFC), after MFC was completed, and after an additional 400 mL of isotonic saline was infused to complete 500 mL of fluid loading (FL). Patients whose SVI increased more than 15% after the FL were defined as fluid responders. Results: Sixty-seven patients completed the study and 35 (52%) of them were responders.The areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves for the MFC-ΔSVI% and MFC-ΔCPI% (0.94; 95% CI: 0.86-0.99 and 0.89; 95% CI: 0.79-0.95, respectively) were significantly higher than those for the SVV and PPV (0.63; 95% CI: 0.50-0.75 and 0.55; 95% CI: 0.42-0.67, respectively) (p < 0.001 for all of the comparisons). The gray zone analysis revealed that the MFC-ΔSVI% values of 12 patients were in the gray zone. Of the 12, the MFC-ΔCPI% values of 7 patients were outside of the gray zone. Conclusion: Fluid responsiveness can be predicted more accurately using the MFC-ΔSVI% and MFC-ΔCPI% than using the SVV and PPV. Additionally, concomitant use of the MFC-ΔSVI% and MFC-ΔCPI% is recommended, as this approach diminishes the number of patients in the gray zone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abdullah et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: