Volume 12 Supplement 2

28th International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine

Open Access

Prediction of fluid responsiveness by FloTrac™ and PiCCOplus™ in cardiac surgery patients

  • C Hofer1,
  • A Senn1 and
  • A Zollinger1
Critical Care200812(Suppl 2):P94

https://doi.org/10.1186/cc6315

Published: 13 March 2008

Introduction

The aim of this study was to compare the prediction of fluid responsiveness [1] using the stroke volume variation (SVV) determined by FloTrac™ (SVV-FloTrac; Edwards Lifesciences, USA) and PiCCOplus™ (SVV-PiCCO; Pulsion Medical Systems, Germany).

Methods

With ethics committee approval, the SVV-FloTrac, SVV-PiCCO, pulse pressure variation (PPV), global end-diastolic volume (GEDV) and stroke volume (SV) were measured before and after a volume shift induced by body positioning (30° head-up to 30° head-down) in 40 patients after cardiac surgery. A t test, Bland–Altman analysis, Pearson correlation and area under the receiver operating curves (AUC) were calculated. P < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Body positioning resulted in a significant SV and GEDV increase, while SVV-FloTrac, SVV-PiCCO and PPV significantly decreased. Comparably strong correlations between SVV-FloTrac/SVV-PiCCO and ΔSV were observed (Table 1). The best AUC was found for SVV-FloTrac (threshold value: 12.1%) and SVV-PiCCO (threshold value: 9.6%). Mean bias ± 2 SD (SVV-FloTrac – SVV-PiCCO) was -2.5 ± 6.2%, and the correlation coefficient (r2) was 0.72 (P < 0.01).
Table 1

AUC predicting ΔSV > 25% and Pearson correlation of baseline indices versus ΔSV

 

AUC

P value

r2 value

P value

SVV-FloTrac

0.824

0.001

0.426

<0.001

SVV-PiCCO

0.858

<0.001

0.492

<0.001

PPV

0.718

0.011

0.334

<0.001

GEDV

0.509

0.924

0.091

0.580

Conclusion

SVV-FloTrac and SVV-PiCCO showed a comparable performance in predicting fluid responsiveness. When compared with SVV-PiCCO, a lower threshold value for SVV-FloTrac has to be considered.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Triemli City Hospital

References

  1. Hofer CK, et al.: Chest. 2005, 128: 848-854. 10.1378/chest.128.2.848PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© BioMed Central Ltd 2008

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd.

Advertisement