Skip to main content

Functional haemodynamic monitoring: the relative merits of SVV, SPV and PPV as measured by the LiDCOrapid in predicting fluid responsiveness in high-risk surgical patients


Standard anaesthetic practice in the high-risk surgical patient is to insert invasive arterial and central venous catheters and then to use ΔCVP and ΔMAP to guide fluid therapy, despite an accumulation of evidence to suggest that filling pressures are inadequate predictors of fluid status and responsiveness. Recent interest has been directed towards dynamic measures of cardiac filling such as SVV, SPV, PPV and Δdown and ΔVpeak. A number of large multicentre trials are underway using the LiDCOrapid. There is, however, little information about the utility of this device or, indeed, any other minimally-invasive cardiac output monitor in the prediction of fluid responsiveness.


The haemodynamic parameters of 70 high-risk patients (mean age 71 ± 11.3, median ASA 3) undergoing major vascular surgery (mean duration 4.2 ± 1.1 hours) were evaluated retrospectively using LiDCOviewPro. All patients underwent standard induction and maintenance of anaesthesia, with propofol/remifentanil TIVA and IPPV (tidal volume ≥7 ml/kg) via a supraglottic airway. Monitoring included BIS, NICO and LiDCOrapid. Fluids were administered according to clinical assessment of need and available haemodynamic parameters. Only fluid boluses given in the absence of HRV >10%, brisk ongoing blood loss and of volume ≥250 ml were included in the evaluation. Positive response to a fluid challenge was defined as ΔSVI ≥10%. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 17.0.


Thirty-two out of 43 valid fluid challenges were positive (74.4%). The correlation coefficients between the baseline SVV, SPV and PPV with ΔSVI were 0.27 (P = 0.08), -0.01 and 0.18 (nonsignificant). The AUROCs were 0.75 (95% CI = 0.57 to 0.93), 0.587 (0.36 to 0.82) and 0.67 (0.48 to 0.86), respectively. The best cut-off value for SVV using Youden's index was 13.5%, with J = 0.48. The positive likelihood ratio was 2.74 and the negative likelihood ratio 0.34, with diagnostic odds ratio 8.06 at this level.


It has been reported that only 50% of critically unwell patients respond to fluid challenge, compared with 74.4% in this intraoperative study of noncardiac surgical patients. The SVV was an adequate predictor of fluid responsiveness. The diagnostic threshold of 13.5% was consistent with previous studies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


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 The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( 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

Willars, C., Dada, A. & Green, D. Functional haemodynamic monitoring: the relative merits of SVV, SPV and PPV as measured by the LiDCOrapid in predicting fluid responsiveness in high-risk surgical patients. Crit Care 15 (Suppl 1), P66 (2011).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Fluid Responsiveness
  • Negative Likelihood Ratio
  • Positive Likelihood Ratio
  • Diagnostic Odds Ratio
  • Fluid Challenge