1. Does End-Expiratory Occlusion Test Predict Fluid Responsiveness in Mechanically Ventilated Patients? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- Author
-
Qiwen Lin, Jianfeng Wu, Minying Chen, Xiangdong Guan, Xiang Si, Guan-Rong Zhang, Yao Nie, Xiaodong Song, and Hai-Lin Xu
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,Supine position ,medicine.medical_treatment ,Cardiac index ,030204 cardiovascular system & hematology ,Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Internal medicine ,Humans ,Medicine ,Arterial Pressure ,Cardiac Output ,Tidal volume ,Mechanical ventilation ,Receiver operating characteristic ,business.industry ,Hemodynamics ,030208 emergency & critical care medicine ,Respiration, Artificial ,Prone position ,Blood pressure ,Emergency Medicine ,Diagnostic odds ratio ,Cardiology ,Fluid Therapy ,business - Abstract
BACKGROUND We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies investigating the end-expiratory occlusion (EEO) test induced changes in cardiac index (CI) and in arterial pressure as predictors of fluid responsiveness in adults receiving mechanical ventilation. METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database, and Chinese database were screened for relevant original and review articles. The meta-analysis determined the pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), and threshold for the EEO test assessed with CI and arterial pressure. In addition, heterogeneity and subgroup analyses were performed. RESULTS We included 13 studies involving 479 adult patients and 523 volume expansion. Statistically significant heterogeneity was identified, and meta-regression indicated that prone position was the major sources of heterogeneity. After removal of the study performed in prone position, heterogeneity became nonsignificant. EEO-induced changes in CI (or surrogate) are accurate for predicting fluid responsiveness in semirecumbent or supine patients, with excellent pooled sensitivity of 92% (95% CI, 0.88-0.95, I = 0.00%), specificity of 89% (95% CI, 0.83-0.93, I = 34.34%), and a summary AUROC of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.93-0.97). The mean threshold was an EEO-induced increase in CI (or surrogate) of more than 4.9 ± 1.5%. EEO test exhibited better diagnostic performance in semirecumbent or supine patients than prone patients, with higher AUROC (0.95 vs. 0.65; P
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF