Skip to main content

LiDCOrapid and PiCCOplus preload response parameter validation study

Introduction

This study compares the ability of two arterial waveform monitors, the calibrated PiCCOplus and the nomogram scaled LiDCOrapid, to detect fluid responsiveness using the functional hemodynamic parameters stroke volume variation (SVV) and pulse pressure variation (PPV) in a surgical ICU population (ventilated, closed chest). The passive leg raising test (PLRT) is an alternative reversible test that can be carried out before administering volume.

Methods

We recruited 20 patients who had undergone major abdominal or neurosurgery and 10 patients in the SICU with progressive circulatory instability. The femoral artery was cannulated to obtain the arterial blood pressure waveform. Simultaneous measurements were made at four time points, M1 to M4: (M1) baseline, (M2) after PLRT, (M3) baseline (M4), after 500 ml Tetraspan® 6% over 10 minutes via pressure infusion. The PiCCO was calibrated via transpulmonary thermodilution at each time point. A change in SV >10% was considered as volume responsive.

Results

Data were collected from 30 patients, age 31 to 90, ASA 2 (2), ASA 3 (24) or ASA 4 (4), BSA 1.54 to 2.52 m2. Patients were ventilated with at least 6 ml/kg (IBW), and RR of 10 to 15/minute. PiCCO identified 15 patients as responders (50%) and LiDCO identified 18 patients as responders (60%) to the fluid challenge, both within the normal range of established studies. ROC curve analysis results are shown in Figure 1. Bland-Altman analysis comparing the PPVL with SVVL and SVVP give a bias of 0.3% and 0%, and limits of agreement of ± 3.8% and ± 4.4%, respectively.

Figure 1
figure1

(abstract P61)

Conclusions

This study has demonstrated that SVV, PPV, and PLRT to a lesser extent, are effective for predicting volume response and can be used perioperatively for fluid management as part of goal-directed therapy. The sensitivity and specificity of the SVVL and PPVL were both greater than the SVVP. This is probably due to the difference in each algorithm's ability to identify responders to the fluid challenge.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P Brass.

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brass, P., Mills, E., Latza, J. et al. LiDCOrapid and PiCCOplus preload response parameter validation study. Crit Care 15, P61 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/cc9481

Download citation

Keywords

  • Fluid Responsiveness
  • Pulse Pressure Variation
  • Stroke Volume Variation
  • Fluid Challenge
  • Pressure Infusion