Respiratory variation in carotid peak systolic velocity predicts volume responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with septic shock: a prospective cohort study

Background The evaluation of fluid responsiveness in patients with hemodynamic instability remains to be challenging. This investigation aimed to determine whether respiratory variation in carotid Doppler peak velocity (ΔCDPV) predicts fluid responsiveness in patients with septic shock and lung prot...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Critical ultrasound journal 2015-06, Vol.7 (1), p.29-29, Article 12
Hauptverfasser: Ibarra-Estrada, Miguel Á, López-Pulgarín, José A, Mijangos-Méndez, Julio C, Díaz-Gómez, José L, Aguirre-Avalos, Guadalupe
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background The evaluation of fluid responsiveness in patients with hemodynamic instability remains to be challenging. This investigation aimed to determine whether respiratory variation in carotid Doppler peak velocity (ΔCDPV) predicts fluid responsiveness in patients with septic shock and lung protective mechanical ventilation with a tidal volume of 6 ml/kg. Methods We performed a prospective cohort study at an intensive care unit, studying the effect of 59 fluid challenges on 19 mechanically ventilated patients with septic shock. Pre-fluid challenge ΔCDPV and other static or dynamic measurements were obtained. Fluid challenge responders were defined as patients whose stroke volume index increased more than 15 % on transpulmonary thermodilution. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was compared for each predictive parameter. Results Fluid responsiveness rate was 51 %. The ΔCDPV had an AUROC of 0.88 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.77–0.95); followed by stroke volume variation (0.72, 95 % CI 0.63–0.88), passive leg raising (0.69, 95 % CI 0.56–0.80), and pulse pressure variation (0.63, 95 % CI 0.49–0.75). The ΔCDPV was a statistically significant superior predictor when compared with the other parameters. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were also the highest for ΔCDPV, with an optimal cutoff at 14 %. There was good correlation between ΔCDPV and SVI increment after the fluid challenge ( r = 0.84; p < 0.001). Conclusions ΔCDPV can be more accurate than other methods for assessing fluid responsiveness in patients with septic shock receiving lung protective mechanical ventilation. ΔCDPV also has a high correlation with SVI increase after fluid challenge.
ISSN:2036-3176
2036-7902
2524-8987
DOI:10.1186/s13089-015-0029-1