Why the study?
Pulse pressure variation predicts fluid responsiveness but requires invasive measurement, creating a need for a technically simple, non-invasive method to evaluate circulatory status.
Does non-invasive pulse-wave transit time with ventilator-induced variation (PWTTV) predict fluid responsiveness as accurately as invasive pulse pressure variation in a porcine model?
Does non-invasive pulse-wave transit time with ventilator-induced variation (PWTTV) predict fluid responsiveness as accurately as invasive pulse pressure variation in a porcine model?
Non-invasive PWTTV demonstrated similar accuracy to invasive pulse pressure variation for predicting fluid responsiveness in a porcine model.
Non-invasive PWTTV merits human validation trials; leaves open equivalence to invasive PPV for guiding fluid therapy.
Aim Although pulse pressure variation is a good predictor of fluid responsiveness, its measurement is invasive. Therefore, a technically simple, non‐invasive method is needed for evaluating circulatory status to prevent fluid loading and optimize hemodynamic status. We focused in the pulse‐wave transit time (PWTT) defined as the time interval between electrocardiogram R wave to plethysmograph upstroke, which has been recently introduced to non‐invasively assess cardiovascular response. In the present study, we evaluated the efficacy of pulse‐wave transit time (PWTT) with ventilator‐induced variation (PWTTV) in predicting fluid responsiveness. Methods We evaluated six domestic pigs weighing 46.0 ± 3.5 kg. After anesthesia induction, electrocardiogram, femoral arterial blood pressure, plethysmograph on the tail, and carotid artery blood flow were monitored and hemorrhage was induced by withdrawing 20 mL/kg blood over 20 min; 5 mL/kg blood volume was then autotransfused over 10 min. Then PWTTV and pulse pressure variation were measured at tidal volumes of 6 and 12 mL/kg. Results Area under the receiver operating curve values for the prediction of a >10% change in carotid artery blood flow were 0.979 for pulse pressure variation and 0.993 for PWTTV at a tidal volume of 6 mL/kg and 0.979 and 0.979, respectively, at a tidal volume of 12 mL/kg (all P < 0.0001). Conclusions Measured non‐invasively, PWTTV showed similar utility to pulse pressure variation in predicting >10% changes in carotid artery blood flow induced by autotransfusion.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Koichi Yamashita (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: