Key result
Dynamic arterial elastance (Eadyn) failed to predict whether blood pressure increases with fluid administration in hypotensive children (AUC 0.506; 95% CI 0.337-0.675; P=0.948).
Why the study?
Dynamic arterial elastance has been proposed to predict mean arterial pressure increases after volume expansion in adults, but its usefulness as a predictor of arterial pressure response in hypotensive pediatric patients needed evaluation.
Does dynamic arterial elastance predict an increase in blood pressure after fluid administration in pediatric patients with hypotension?
Observational (n=63)
Yes
Does dynamic arterial elastance predict an increase in blood pressure after fluid administration in pediatric patients with hypotension?
Mean Difference: 0.08 (95% CI -0.19–0.34)
Absolute Event Rate: 1.06% vs 0.99%
p-value: p=0.567
Dynamic arterial elastance and modified dynamic arterial elastance are not useful predictors of blood pressure increase following fluid administration in hypotensive children aged 5 years or younger.
Eadyn does not predict MAP response to fluid in hypotensive children ≤5 years; leaves open need for pediatric-specific indices.
Background Dynamic arterial elastance (Eadyn) has been proposed to predict an increase in mean arterial pressure (MAP) after volume expansion in hypotensive adults. We aimed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of Eadyn as a predictor of arterial pressure response after fluid loading in pediatric patients with hypotension. Methods We re‐analyzed data of 63 hypotensive children (age, ≤5 years), collected from three previous prospective observational studies about fluid responsiveness. Pulse pressure variation (PPV), stroke volume variation (SVV), and respiratory variation in aortic blood flow velocity (ΔVpeak) were used to calculate Eadyn (PPV/SVV) and modified Eadyn (PPV/ΔVpeak). Preload‐dependent patients were defined as those with ΔVpeak ≥12% before fluid loading. Patients were classified as pressure responders, if their MAP increased ≥15% after fluid administration. Results Mean Eadyn (SD) was 1.06 (0.47) in pressure responders (n=39) and 0.99 (0.48) in nonresponders (n = 24) (mean difference, 0.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.19‐0.34; P = .567). Additionally, mean modified Eadyn was 1.27 (0.64) in responders and 1.11 (0.43) in nonresponders (mean difference, 0.17; 95% CI, −0.13‐0.46; P = 0.269). Both Eadyn (AUC 0.506; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.337 to 0.675; P = 0.948) and modified Eadyn (AUC 0.498; 95% CI, 0.328‐0.669; P = 0.983), as well as other dynamic variables, could not predict pressure responsiveness in children. Sub‐group analysis revealed similar findings in both in 39 preload‐dependent and hypotensive patients (26 pressure responders and 13 nonpressure responders). Conclusion Both Eadyn and modified Eadyn cannot predict whether blood pressure increases with fluid administration in pediatric patients with hypotension.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Hypotension (n=63). Dynamic arterial elastance (Eadyn) vs. Nonresponders was evaluated on Arterial pressure response (MAP increase ≥15%) after fluid loading (MD 0.08, 95% CI -0.19-0.34, p=0.567). Dynamic arterial elastance (Eadyn) failed to predict whether blood pressure increases with fluid administration in hypotensive children (AUC 0.506; 95% CI 0.337-0.675; P=0.948).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: