Why the study?
Does the INVS1 parameter derived from arterial blood pressure measurements accurately assess stroke volume variation compared to the PiCCO technique in mechanically ventilated ICU patients?
Does the INVS1 parameter derived from arterial blood pressure measurements accurately assess stroke volume variation compared to the PiCCO technique in mechanically ventilated ICU patients?
A novel, minimally invasive method using the first systolic invariant (INVS1) from arterial blood pressure signals shows strong correlation and agreement with the PiCCO technique for assessing stroke volume variation in mechanically ventilated patients.
INVS1 may enable simpler stroke volume monitoring in ventilated patients; leaves open clinical adoption pending validation trials.
This paper proposes a novel, simple and minimally invasive method for stroke volume variation assessment using arterial blood pressure measurements. The arterial blood pressure signal is reconstructed using a semi-classical signal analysis method allowing the computation of a parameter, called the first systolic invariant INVS1. We show that INVS1 is linearly related to stroke volume. To validate this approach, a statistical comparaison between INVS1 and stroke volume measured with the PiCCO technique was performed during a 15-mn recording in 21 mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care. In 94% of the whole recordings, a strong correlation was estimated by cross-correlation analysis (mean coefficient=0.9) and linear regression (mean coefficient=0.89). Once the linear relation had been verified, a Bland-Altman test showed the very good agreement between the two approaches and their interchangeability. For the remaining 6%, INVS1 and the PiCCO stroke volume were not correlated at all, and this discrepancy, interpreted with the help of mean pressure, heart rate and peripheral vascular resistances, was in favor of INVS1.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Laleg‐Kirati et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: