Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Poster presentation
  • Open Access

Prediction of fluid responsiveness in septic shock patients: comparing automated pulse pressure variation by IntelliVue MP monitor and stroke volume variation by FloTrac™/Vigileo™

  • 1 and
  • 2
Critical Care201115 (Suppl 1) :P53

https://doi.org/10.1186/cc9473

  • Published:

Keywords

  • Septic Shock
  • Emergency Medicine
  • Cardiac Index
  • Comparable Performance
  • Optimal Threshold

Introduction

The aim of this study was to assess and compare the ability of the automatically and continuously measured pulse pressure variation (PPV) obtained by an IntelliVue MP monitor and stroke volume variation (SVV) measured by FloTrac™/Vigileo™ to predict fluid responsiveness in septic shock patients.

Methods

We conducted a prospective study on 42 mechanically ventilated septic shock patients. SVV, PPV and other hemodynamic data were recorded before and after fluid administration with 500 ml of 6% tetrastarch. Responders were defined as patients with an increase in cardiac index ≥15% after fluid loading.

Results

The agreement (mean bias ± SD) between PPV and SVV was -0.59 ± 1.72% (Figure 1). The baseline PPV correlated with the baseline SVV (r = 0.96, P < 0.001). Twenty-seven (64.3%) patients were classified as fluid responders. PPV and SVV were significantly higher in responders than in nonresponders (16.2 ± 4.9 vs. 7.1 ± 2% and 15.3 ± 4.3 vs. 6.9 ± 1.9%, respectively, P < 0.001 for both). There was no difference between the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of PPV (0.983) and SVV (0.99). The optimal threshold values to predicting fluid responsiveness were 10% for PPV (sensitivity 92.6%, specificity 86.7%) and 10% for SVV (sensitivity 92.6%, specificity 100%).
Figure 1
Figure 1

Bland-Altman analysis for the agreement between SVV and PPV.

Conclusions

The automated PPV, obtained by the Intellivue MP monitor, and the SVV, obtained by FloTrac™/Vigileo™, showed comparable performance in terms of predicting fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with septic shock.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Songklanagarind Hospital, Songkhla, Thailand
(2)
Division of Critical Care Medicine, Hat Yai, Thailand

References

  1. Cannesson M, et al.: Anesth Analg. 2008, 106: 1195-1200. 10.1213/01.ane.0000297291.01615.5cView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Derichard A, et al.: Br J Anaesth. 2009, 103: 678-684. 10.1093/bja/aep267View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Khwannimit and Bhurayanontachai 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement