Key result
Right ventricular stroke volume variation (SVVRV) significantly predicted volume responsiveness with an area under the curve of 0.82 in an experimental porcine model.
Why the study?
Dynamic indicators of preload currently only reflect left ventricular preload requirements, and no dynamic indicators of right ventricular preload have been established.
Do dynamic indicators of right ventricular preload predict volume responsiveness in an experimental pig model?
Do dynamic indicators of right ventricular preload predict volume responsiveness in an experimental pig model?
Effect estimate: AUC 0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.89)
p-value: p=<0.001
In an experimental pig model, dynamic indicators of right ventricular preload, particularly right ventricular stroke volume variation, can predict volume responsiveness.
Purpose Dynamic indicators of preload currently only do reflect preload requirements of the left ventricle. To date, no dynamic indicators of right ventricular preload have been established. The aim of this study was to calculate dynamic indicators of right ventricular preload and assess their ability to predict ventricular volume responsiveness. Materials and methods The study was designed as experimental trial in 20 anaesthetized pigs. Micro-tip catheters and ultrasonic flow probes were used as experimental reference to enable measurement of right ventricular stroke volume and pulse pressure. Hypovolemia was induced (withdrawal of blood 20 ml/kg) and thereafter three volume-loading steps were performed. ROC analysis was performed to assess the ability of dynamic right ventricular parameters to predict volume response. Results ROC analysis revealed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.82 (CI 95% 0.73–0.89; p < 0.001) for right ventricular stroke volume variation (SVVRV), an AUC of 0.72 (CI 95% 0.53–0.85; p = 0.02) for pulmonary artery pulse pressure variation (PPVPA) and an AUC of 0.66 (CI 95% 0.51–0.79; p = 0.04) for pulmonary artery systolic pressure variation (SPVPA). Conclusions In our experimental animal setting, calculating dynamic indicators of right ventricular preload is possible and appears promising in predicting volume responsiveness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Graessler et al. (2021) studied Hypovolemia / Volume responsiveness (n=20). Right ventricular stroke volume variation (SVVRV) vs. Central venous pressure (CVP) was evaluated on Prediction of volume responsiveness (≥15% increase in right ventricular stroke volume) (AUC 0.82, 95% CI 0.73-0.89, p=<0.001). Right ventricular stroke volume variation (SVVRV) significantly predicted volume responsiveness with an area under the curve of 0.82 in an experimental porcine model.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: