Back to Search Start Over

The use of pulse pressure variation for predicting impairment of microcirculatory blood flow

Authors :
Rahel Kluttig
Sabine H. Wipper
Till Friedheim
Constantin Trepte
E. Sebastian Debus
Daniel A. Reuter
Michael F. Graessler
Christoph R Behem
Anna Duprée
Hans O. Pinnschmidt
Source :
Scientific Reports, Vol 11, Iss 1, Pp 1-11 (2021), Scientific Reports
Publication Year :
2021
Publisher :
Nature Portfolio, 2021.

Abstract

Dynamic parameters of preload have been widely recommended to guide fluid therapy based on the principle of fluid responsiveness and with regard to cardiac output. An equally important aspect is however to also avoid volume-overload. This accounts particularly when capillary leakage is present and volume-overload will promote impairment of microcirculatory blood flow. The aim of this study was to evaluate, whether an impairment of intestinal microcirculation caused by volume-load potentially can be predicted using pulse pressure variation in an experimental model of ischemia/reperfusion injury. The study was designed as a prospective explorative large animal pilot study. The study was performed in 8 anesthetized domestic pigs (German landrace). Ischemia/reperfusion was induced during aortic surgery. 6 h after ischemia/reperfusion-injury measurements were performed during 4 consecutive volume-loading-steps, each consisting of 6 ml kg−1 bodyweight−1. Mean microcirculatory blood flow (mean Flux) of the ileum was measured using direct laser-speckle-contrast-imaging. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to determine the ability of pulse pressure variation to predict a decrease in microcirculation. A reduction of ≥ 10% mean Flux was considered a relevant decrease. After ischemia–reperfusion, volume-loading-steps led to a significant increase of cardiac output as well as mean arterial pressure, while pulse pressure variation and mean Flux were significantly reduced (Pairwise comparison ischemia/reperfusion-injury vs. volume loading step no. 4): cardiac output (l min−1) 1.68 (1.02–2.35) versus 2.84 (2.15–3.53), p = 0.002, mean arterial pressure (mmHg) 29.89 (21.65–38.12) versus 52.34 (43.55–61.14), p p = 0.004, mean Flux (p.u.) 414.95 (295.18–534.72) versus 327.21 (206.95–447.48), p = 0.006. Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed an area under the curve of 0.88 (CI 95% 0.73–1.00; p value

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
20452322
Volume :
11
Issue :
1
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Scientific Reports
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....d9df19093f99fce07f16e73a14454d06