Key result
Baseline aortic ∆Vpeak predicts fluid responsiveness in young children undergoing neurosurgery with ~0.98 AUROC.
Why the study?
Evidence on whether dynamic variables predict fluid responsiveness in young children was limited by conflicting research results.
Do dynamic variables predict fluid responsiveness in young children undergoing major neurosurgery?
Observational (n=60)
Do dynamic variables predict fluid responsiveness in young children undergoing major neurosurgery?
Effect estimate: AUROC 0.982
p-value: p=<0.001
Volume-based dynamic variables (∆Vpeak and PVI) reliably predict fluid responsiveness in young children undergoing neurosurgery, whereas pressure-based variables do not.
∆Vpeak may guide fluid decisions in pediatric neurosurgery; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized validation.
Background The evidence that dynamic variables predict fluid responsiveness in young children is limited by conflicting research results. Methods Sixty patients, 1–3 years of age, undergoing major neurosurgery, received 10 mL/kg of Ringer's solution over 10 min after anesthesia induction. Respiratory variation in aortic blood flow peak velocity (∆Vpeak), plethysmographic variability index (PVI), FloTrac/Vigileo‐derived stroke volume variation (SVV), dynamic arterial elastance (Eadyn), and pulse pressure variation (PPV) were measured before and following fluid loading. An increase in the cardiac index (CI) of ≥10% following fluid loading identified fluid “responders.” Results Twenty‐six patients (43.3%) were fluid responders. Baseline ∆Vpeak was an excellent predictor of a CI increase following fluid loading with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.982 (p < 0.001). The PVI showed fair diagnostic accuracy for CI‐fluid responsiveness (AUROC 0.775, p < 0.001). Baseline ∆Vpeak and PVI cutoff values were 9.6% and 15%, respectively. PPV, SVV, and Eadyn were not predictors or were poor predictors for CI‐fluid responsiveness (AUROC 0.669, 0.653, and 0.533, respectively). Conclusion Volume‐based PVI and ∆Vpeak showed acceptable reliability for fluid responsiveness prediction in young children undergoing major neurosurgery, whereas pressure‐based SVV using FloTrac/Vigileo, Eadyn, and PPV did not.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Young children undergoing major neurosurgery (n=60). Dynamic variables (∆Vpeak, PVI, SVV, Eadyn, PPV) was evaluated on Fluid responsiveness (increase in cardiac index ≥10% following fluid loading) (AUROC 0.982, p=<0.001). Baseline respiratory variation in aortic blood flow peak velocity (∆Vpeak) excellently predicted fluid responsiveness in young children undergoing neurosurgery (AUROC 0.982, p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: