Ventilator-induced central venous pressure variation can predict fluid responsiveness in post-operative cardiac surgery patients

Background Ventilator‐induced dynamic hemodynamic parameters such as stroke volume variation (SVV) and pulse pressure variation (PPV) have been shown to predict fluid responsiveness in contrast to static hemodynamic parameters such as central venous pressure (CVP). We hypothesized that the ventilato...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 2016-11, Vol.60 (10), p.1395-1403
Hauptverfasser: Cherpanath, T. G. V., Geerts, B. F., Maas, J. J., de Wilde, R. B. P., Groeneveld, A. B., Jansen, J. R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1403
container_issue 10
container_start_page 1395
container_title Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
container_volume 60
creator Cherpanath, T. G. V.
Geerts, B. F.
Maas, J. J.
de Wilde, R. B. P.
Groeneveld, A. B.
Jansen, J. R.
description Background Ventilator‐induced dynamic hemodynamic parameters such as stroke volume variation (SVV) and pulse pressure variation (PPV) have been shown to predict fluid responsiveness in contrast to static hemodynamic parameters such as central venous pressure (CVP). We hypothesized that the ventilator‐induced central venous pressure variation (CVPV) could predict fluid responsiveness. Methods Twenty‐two elective cardiac surgery patients were studied post‐operatively on the intensive care unit during mechanical ventilation with tidal volumes of 6–8 ml/kg without spontaneous breathing efforts or cardiac arrhythmia. Before and after administration of 500mL hydroxyethyl starch, SVV and PPV were measured using pulse contour analysis by modified Modelflow®, while CVP was obtained from a central venous catheter positioned in the superior vena cava. CVPV was calculated as 100 × (CVPmax−CVPmin)/[(CVPmax + CVPmin)/2]. Results Nineteen patients (86%) were fluid responders defined as an increase in cardiac output of ≥ 15% after fluid administration. CVPV decreased upon fluid loading in responders, but not in non‐responders. Baseline CVP values showed no correlation with a change in cardiac output in contrast to baseline SVV (r = 0.60, P = 0.003), PPV (r = 0.58, P = 0.005), and CVPV (r = 0.63, P = 0.002). Baseline values of SVV > 9% and PPV > 8% could predict fluid responsiveness with a sensitivity of 89% and 95%, respectively, both with a specificity of 100%. Baseline CVPV could identify all fluid responders and non‐responders correctly at a cut‐off value of 12%. There was no difference between the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of SVV, PPV, and CVPV. Conclusion The use of ventilator‐induced CVPV could predict fluid responsiveness similar to SVV and PPV in post‐operative cardiac surgery patients.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/aas.12811
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1835389228</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1835389228</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3911-1efef701a148aefbcbd9a465e822403bf68e0fc415670727d24685dba956b18d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUtv1DAUhS0EotPCgj-ALLGhi7R-JLGzHBWmILVF4rm0HPsGuWTi1E4GZtefzh2m7aIS3lg-_s7x4xDyirMTjuPU2nzCheb8CVlw2TRFXan6KVkwxnhRcSUOyGHO17iUZdM8JwdC1aIUXC_I7XcYptDbKaYiDH524KlDKdmebmCIc6ZjgpznBHRjU7BTiAN1dtjJPriJdv0cPEVmjEMO6EGaBtyPeSriCAktG0BL8sE6ikk_IW3piDKek1-QZ53tM7y8m4_It9X7r2cfiotP5x_PlheFkw3nBYcOOsW45aW20LWu9Y0t6wq0ECWTbVdrYJ0reVUrpoTyoqx15VvbVHXLtZdH5O0-d0zxZoY8mXXIDvreDoCvNFzLSupGCI3om0fodZzTgLdDSiC1-0ekjveUSzHnBJ0ZU1jbtDWcmV0tBmsx_2pB9vVd4tyuwT-Q9z0gcLoHfocetv9PMsvll_vIYu8IeYI_Dw6bfplaSVWZH1fnpvxcXrKVfGdW8i9Lz6hD</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1825380034</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ventilator-induced central venous pressure variation can predict fluid responsiveness in post-operative cardiac surgery patients</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Cherpanath, T. G. V. ; Geerts, B. F. ; Maas, J. J. ; de Wilde, R. B. P. ; Groeneveld, A. B. ; Jansen, J. R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Cherpanath, T. G. V. ; Geerts, B. F. ; Maas, J. J. ; de Wilde, R. B. P. ; Groeneveld, A. B. ; Jansen, J. R.</creatorcontrib><description>Background Ventilator‐induced dynamic hemodynamic parameters such as stroke volume variation (SVV) and pulse pressure variation (PPV) have been shown to predict fluid responsiveness in contrast to static hemodynamic parameters such as central venous pressure (CVP). We hypothesized that the ventilator‐induced central venous pressure variation (CVPV) could predict fluid responsiveness. Methods Twenty‐two elective cardiac surgery patients were studied post‐operatively on the intensive care unit during mechanical ventilation with tidal volumes of 6–8 ml/kg without spontaneous breathing efforts or cardiac arrhythmia. Before and after administration of 500mL hydroxyethyl starch, SVV and PPV were measured using pulse contour analysis by modified Modelflow®, while CVP was obtained from a central venous catheter positioned in the superior vena cava. CVPV was calculated as 100 × (CVPmax−CVPmin)/[(CVPmax + CVPmin)/2]. Results Nineteen patients (86%) were fluid responders defined as an increase in cardiac output of ≥ 15% after fluid administration. CVPV decreased upon fluid loading in responders, but not in non‐responders. Baseline CVP values showed no correlation with a change in cardiac output in contrast to baseline SVV (r = 0.60, P = 0.003), PPV (r = 0.58, P = 0.005), and CVPV (r = 0.63, P = 0.002). Baseline values of SVV &gt; 9% and PPV &gt; 8% could predict fluid responsiveness with a sensitivity of 89% and 95%, respectively, both with a specificity of 100%. Baseline CVPV could identify all fluid responders and non‐responders correctly at a cut‐off value of 12%. There was no difference between the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of SVV, PPV, and CVPV. Conclusion The use of ventilator‐induced CVPV could predict fluid responsiveness similar to SVV and PPV in post‐operative cardiac surgery patients.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0001-5172</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1399-6576</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/aas.12811</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27624218</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AANEAB</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Aged ; Blood pressure ; Cardiac Output ; Cardiac Surgical Procedures ; Catheters ; Central Venous Pressure ; Female ; Fluid Therapy ; Heart surgery ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Stroke Volume ; Ventilators ; Ventilators, Mechanical</subject><ispartof>Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2016-11, Vol.60 (10), p.1395-1403</ispartof><rights>2016 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2016 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3911-1efef701a148aefbcbd9a465e822403bf68e0fc415670727d24685dba956b18d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3911-1efef701a148aefbcbd9a465e822403bf68e0fc415670727d24685dba956b18d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Faas.12811$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Faas.12811$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1412,27905,27906,45555,45556</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27624218$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cherpanath, T. G. V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geerts, B. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maas, J. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Wilde, R. B. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Groeneveld, A. B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jansen, J. R.</creatorcontrib><title>Ventilator-induced central venous pressure variation can predict fluid responsiveness in post-operative cardiac surgery patients</title><title>Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica</title><addtitle>Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand</addtitle><description>Background Ventilator‐induced dynamic hemodynamic parameters such as stroke volume variation (SVV) and pulse pressure variation (PPV) have been shown to predict fluid responsiveness in contrast to static hemodynamic parameters such as central venous pressure (CVP). We hypothesized that the ventilator‐induced central venous pressure variation (CVPV) could predict fluid responsiveness. Methods Twenty‐two elective cardiac surgery patients were studied post‐operatively on the intensive care unit during mechanical ventilation with tidal volumes of 6–8 ml/kg without spontaneous breathing efforts or cardiac arrhythmia. Before and after administration of 500mL hydroxyethyl starch, SVV and PPV were measured using pulse contour analysis by modified Modelflow®, while CVP was obtained from a central venous catheter positioned in the superior vena cava. CVPV was calculated as 100 × (CVPmax−CVPmin)/[(CVPmax + CVPmin)/2]. Results Nineteen patients (86%) were fluid responders defined as an increase in cardiac output of ≥ 15% after fluid administration. CVPV decreased upon fluid loading in responders, but not in non‐responders. Baseline CVP values showed no correlation with a change in cardiac output in contrast to baseline SVV (r = 0.60, P = 0.003), PPV (r = 0.58, P = 0.005), and CVPV (r = 0.63, P = 0.002). Baseline values of SVV &gt; 9% and PPV &gt; 8% could predict fluid responsiveness with a sensitivity of 89% and 95%, respectively, both with a specificity of 100%. Baseline CVPV could identify all fluid responders and non‐responders correctly at a cut‐off value of 12%. There was no difference between the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of SVV, PPV, and CVPV. Conclusion The use of ventilator‐induced CVPV could predict fluid responsiveness similar to SVV and PPV in post‐operative cardiac surgery patients.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Blood pressure</subject><subject>Cardiac Output</subject><subject>Cardiac Surgical Procedures</subject><subject>Catheters</subject><subject>Central Venous Pressure</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fluid Therapy</subject><subject>Heart surgery</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Stroke Volume</subject><subject>Ventilators</subject><subject>Ventilators, Mechanical</subject><issn>0001-5172</issn><issn>1399-6576</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUtv1DAUhS0EotPCgj-ALLGhi7R-JLGzHBWmILVF4rm0HPsGuWTi1E4GZtefzh2m7aIS3lg-_s7x4xDyirMTjuPU2nzCheb8CVlw2TRFXan6KVkwxnhRcSUOyGHO17iUZdM8JwdC1aIUXC_I7XcYptDbKaYiDH524KlDKdmebmCIc6ZjgpznBHRjU7BTiAN1dtjJPriJdv0cPEVmjEMO6EGaBtyPeSriCAktG0BL8sE6ikk_IW3piDKek1-QZ53tM7y8m4_It9X7r2cfiotP5x_PlheFkw3nBYcOOsW45aW20LWu9Y0t6wq0ECWTbVdrYJ0reVUrpoTyoqx15VvbVHXLtZdH5O0-d0zxZoY8mXXIDvreDoCvNFzLSupGCI3om0fodZzTgLdDSiC1-0ekjveUSzHnBJ0ZU1jbtDWcmV0tBmsx_2pB9vVd4tyuwT-Q9z0gcLoHfocetv9PMsvll_vIYu8IeYI_Dw6bfplaSVWZH1fnpvxcXrKVfGdW8i9Lz6hD</recordid><startdate>201611</startdate><enddate>201611</enddate><creator>Cherpanath, T. G. V.</creator><creator>Geerts, B. F.</creator><creator>Maas, J. J.</creator><creator>de Wilde, R. B. P.</creator><creator>Groeneveld, A. B.</creator><creator>Jansen, J. R.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201611</creationdate><title>Ventilator-induced central venous pressure variation can predict fluid responsiveness in post-operative cardiac surgery patients</title><author>Cherpanath, T. G. V. ; Geerts, B. F. ; Maas, J. J. ; de Wilde, R. B. P. ; Groeneveld, A. B. ; Jansen, J. R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3911-1efef701a148aefbcbd9a465e822403bf68e0fc415670727d24685dba956b18d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Blood pressure</topic><topic>Cardiac Output</topic><topic>Cardiac Surgical Procedures</topic><topic>Catheters</topic><topic>Central Venous Pressure</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fluid Therapy</topic><topic>Heart surgery</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Stroke Volume</topic><topic>Ventilators</topic><topic>Ventilators, Mechanical</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cherpanath, T. G. V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geerts, B. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maas, J. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Wilde, R. B. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Groeneveld, A. B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jansen, J. R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cherpanath, T. G. V.</au><au>Geerts, B. F.</au><au>Maas, J. J.</au><au>de Wilde, R. B. P.</au><au>Groeneveld, A. B.</au><au>Jansen, J. R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ventilator-induced central venous pressure variation can predict fluid responsiveness in post-operative cardiac surgery patients</atitle><jtitle>Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica</jtitle><addtitle>Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand</addtitle><date>2016-11</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>60</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>1395</spage><epage>1403</epage><pages>1395-1403</pages><issn>0001-5172</issn><eissn>1399-6576</eissn><coden>AANEAB</coden><abstract>Background Ventilator‐induced dynamic hemodynamic parameters such as stroke volume variation (SVV) and pulse pressure variation (PPV) have been shown to predict fluid responsiveness in contrast to static hemodynamic parameters such as central venous pressure (CVP). We hypothesized that the ventilator‐induced central venous pressure variation (CVPV) could predict fluid responsiveness. Methods Twenty‐two elective cardiac surgery patients were studied post‐operatively on the intensive care unit during mechanical ventilation with tidal volumes of 6–8 ml/kg without spontaneous breathing efforts or cardiac arrhythmia. Before and after administration of 500mL hydroxyethyl starch, SVV and PPV were measured using pulse contour analysis by modified Modelflow®, while CVP was obtained from a central venous catheter positioned in the superior vena cava. CVPV was calculated as 100 × (CVPmax−CVPmin)/[(CVPmax + CVPmin)/2]. Results Nineteen patients (86%) were fluid responders defined as an increase in cardiac output of ≥ 15% after fluid administration. CVPV decreased upon fluid loading in responders, but not in non‐responders. Baseline CVP values showed no correlation with a change in cardiac output in contrast to baseline SVV (r = 0.60, P = 0.003), PPV (r = 0.58, P = 0.005), and CVPV (r = 0.63, P = 0.002). Baseline values of SVV &gt; 9% and PPV &gt; 8% could predict fluid responsiveness with a sensitivity of 89% and 95%, respectively, both with a specificity of 100%. Baseline CVPV could identify all fluid responders and non‐responders correctly at a cut‐off value of 12%. There was no difference between the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of SVV, PPV, and CVPV. Conclusion The use of ventilator‐induced CVPV could predict fluid responsiveness similar to SVV and PPV in post‐operative cardiac surgery patients.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>27624218</pmid><doi>10.1111/aas.12811</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0001-5172
ispartof Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2016-11, Vol.60 (10), p.1395-1403
issn 0001-5172
1399-6576
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1835389228
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Aged
Blood pressure
Cardiac Output
Cardiac Surgical Procedures
Catheters
Central Venous Pressure
Female
Fluid Therapy
Heart surgery
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Stroke Volume
Ventilators
Ventilators, Mechanical
title Ventilator-induced central venous pressure variation can predict fluid responsiveness in post-operative cardiac surgery patients
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T04%3A08%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ventilator-induced%20central%20venous%20pressure%20variation%20can%20predict%20fluid%20responsiveness%20in%20post-operative%20cardiac%20surgery%20patients&rft.jtitle=Acta%20anaesthesiologica%20Scandinavica&rft.au=Cherpanath,%20T.%20G.%20V.&rft.date=2016-11&rft.volume=60&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1395&rft.epage=1403&rft.pages=1395-1403&rft.issn=0001-5172&rft.eissn=1399-6576&rft.coden=AANEAB&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/aas.12811&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1835389228%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1825380034&rft_id=info:pmid/27624218&rfr_iscdi=true