Search

Background: Functional hemodynamic parameters such as stroke volume and pulse pressure variation (SVV and PPV) have been shown to be reliable predictors of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. Today, different minimally- and non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring systems measure functional hemodynamic parameters. Although some of these parameters are described by the same name, they differ in their measurement technique and thus may provide different results. We aimed to test the performance of seven functional hemodynamic parameters simultaneously in the same clinical setting. Methods: Hemodynamic measurements were done in 30 cardiac surgery patients that were mechanically ventilated. Before and after a standardized intravenous fluid bolus, hemodynamics were measured by the following monitoring systems: PiCCOplus (SVVPiCCO, PPVPiCCO), LiDCOrapid (SVVLiDCO, PPVLiDCO), FloTrac (SVVFloTrac), Philips Intellivue (PPVPhilips) and Masimo pulse oximeter (pleth variability index, PVI). Prediction of fluid responsiveness was tested by calculation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves including a gray zone approach and compared using Fisher's Z-Test. Results: Fluid administration resulted in an increase in cardiac output, while all functional hemodynamic parameters decreased. A wide range of areas under the ROC-curve (AUC's) was observed: AUC-SVVPiCCO = 0.91, AUC-PPVPiCCO = 0.88, AUC-SVVLiDCO = 0.78, AUC-PPVLiDCO = 0.89, AUC-SVVFloTrac = 0.87, AUC-PPVPhilips = 0.92 and AUC-PVI = 0.68. Optimal threshold values for prediction of fluid responsiveness ranged between 9.5 and 17.5%. Lowest threshold values were observed for SVVLiDCO, highest for PVI. Conclusion: All functional hemodynamic parameters tested except for PVI showed that their use allows a reliable identification of potential fluid responders. PVI however, may not be suitable after cardiac surgery to predict fluid responsiveness. Trial registration: NCT02571465, registered on October 7th, 2015 (retrospectively registered). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article on the case of a 65-year-old male patient with severe adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in the 2011 issue.

Purpose: The difference between mean systemic filling (Pmsf) and central venous pressure (CVP) is the venous return gradient (dVR). The aim of this study is to assess the significance of the Pmsf analogue (Pmsa) and the dVR during a fluid challenge. Methods: We performed a prospective observational study in postsurgical patients. Patients were monitored with a central venous catheter, a LiDCO™plus and the Navigator™. A 250-ml intravenous fluid challenge was given over 5 min. A positive response to the fluid challenge was defined as either a stroke volume (SV) or cardiac output increase of greater than 10 %. Results: A total of 101 fluid challenges were observed in 39 patients. In 43 events (42.6 %) the SV and CO increased by more than 10 %. Pmsa increased similarly during a fluid challenge in responders and non-responders (3.1 ± 1.9 vs. 3.1 ± 1.8, p = 0.9), whereas the dVR increased in responders (1.16 ± 0.8 vs. 0.2 ± 1, p < 0.001) as among non-responders CVP increased along with Pmsa (2.9 ± 1.7 vs. 3.1 ± 1.8, p = 0.15). Resistance to venous return did not change immediately after a fluid challenge. Heart performance (Eh) decreased significantly among non-responders (0.41 ± 0.15 vs. 0.34 ± 0.13, p < 0.001) whereas among responders it did not change when compared with baseline value (0.35 ± 0.15 vs. 0.34 ± 0.12, p = 0.15). Conclusions: The changes in Pmsa and dVR measured at the bedside during a fluid challenge are consistent with the cardiovascular model described by Guyton. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]