Key result
Femoral stroke volume variation was a significant predictor of fluid responsiveness during the anhepatic phase of liver transplantation (AUC 0.894, P=0.0001), outperforming CVP and PAOP.
Why the study?
Does femoral stroke volume variation predict fluid responsiveness better than CVP and PAOP during the anhepatic phase of liver transplantation?
Observational (n=33)
Does femoral stroke volume variation predict fluid responsiveness better than CVP and PAOP during the anhepatic phase of liver transplantation?
Effect estimate: AUC 0.894
p-value: p=0.0001
Femoral stroke volume variation derived from the Vigileo monitor is a superior predictor of fluid responsiveness compared to CVP and PAOP during the anhepatic phase of liver transplantation.
May support femoral SVV for fluid assessment in anhepatic phase; leaves open prospective outcome trials before practice change.
We evaluated the value of the stroke volume variation (SVV) calculated with the Vigileo monitor, which recently has been increasingly advocated for fluid management, as a predictor of fluid responsiveness during the anhepatic phase of liver transplantation (LT). We also compared SVV to the central venous pressure (CVP) and pulmonary arterial occlusion pressure (PAOP) in patients. Thirty-three adult recipients scheduled for elective living donor LT were enrolled in this study. Twenty minutes after the start of the anhepatic phase, the CVP, PAOP, approximate inferior vena caval pressure, femoral SVV, and cardiac output values were measured before and 12 minutes after fluid loading. Fluid loading was performed with a 6% hydroxyethyl starch solution (10 mL/kg). The responders were defined as patients whose cardiac index increased ≥ 15% after fluid loading. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that only femoral SVV (area under the curve = 0.894, P = 0.0001) could be used to predict fluid responsiveness during the anhepatic phase of LT. The area under the ROC curve for femoral SVV was 0.894 (P = 0.0001), and it was significantly larger than those for CVP (area under the curve = 0.576, P = 0.004) and PAOP (area under the curve = 0.670, P = 0.021). Femoral SVV >8% identified the responders with a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 80%. Our results suggest that femoral SVV derived with the Vigileo monitor would be useful for fluid management during the anhepatic phase in LT recipients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shin et al. (2010) conducted an observational in Liver transplantation (n=33). Femoral stroke volume variation (SVV) vs. Central venous pressure (CVP) and pulmonary arterial occlusion pressure (PAOP) was evaluated on Prediction of fluid responsiveness (cardiac index increased ≥ 15% after fluid loading) (AUC 0.894, p=0.0001). Femoral stroke volume variation was a significant predictor of fluid responsiveness during the anhepatic phase of liver transplantation (AUC 0.894, P=0.0001), outperforming CVP and PAOP.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: