We found a match
Your institution may have rights to this item. Sign in to continue.
- Title
Assessment of fluid responsiveness using pulse pressure variation, stroke volume variation, plethysmographic variability index, central venous pressure, and inferior vena cava variation in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Authors
Chaves, Renato Carneiro de Freitas; Barbas, Carmen Silvia Valente; Queiroz, Veronica Neves Fialho; Serpa Neto, Ary; Deliberato, Rodrigo Octavio; Pereira, Adriano José; Timenetsky, Karina Tavares; Silva Júnior, João Manoel; Takaoka, Flávio; de Backer, Daniel; Celi, Leo Anthony; Corrêa, Thiago Domingos
- Abstract
Importance: Maneuvers assessing fluid responsiveness before an intravascular volume expansion may limit useless fluid administration, which in turn may improve outcomes. Objective: To describe maneuvers for assessing fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. Registration: The protocol was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42019146781. Information sources and search: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and Web of Science were search from inception to 08/08/2023. Study selection and data collection: Prospective and intervention studies were selected. Statistical analysis: Data for each maneuver were reported individually and data from the five most employed maneuvers were aggregated. A traditional and a Bayesian meta-analysis approach were performed. Results: A total of 69 studies, encompassing 3185 fluid challenges and 2711 patients were analyzed. The prevalence of fluid responsiveness was 49.9%. Pulse pressure variation (PPV) was studied in 40 studies, mean threshold with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) = 11.5 (10.5–12.4)%, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) with 95% CI was 0.87 (0.84–0.90). Stroke volume variation (SVV) was studied in 24 studies, mean threshold with 95% CI = 12.1 (10.9–13.3)%, and AUC with 95% CI was 0.87 (0.84–0.91). The plethysmographic variability index (PVI) was studied in 17 studies, mean threshold = 13.8 (12.3–15.3)%, and AUC was 0.88 (0.82–0.94). Central venous pressure (CVP) was studied in 12 studies, mean threshold with 95% CI = 9.0 (7.7–10.1) mmHg, and AUC with 95% CI was 0.77 (0.69–0.87). Inferior vena cava variation (∆IVC) was studied in 8 studies, mean threshold = 15.4 (13.3–17.6)%, and AUC with 95% CI was 0.83 (0.78–0.89). Conclusions: Fluid responsiveness can be reliably assessed in adult patients under mechanical ventilation. Among the five maneuvers compared in predicting fluid responsiveness, PPV, SVV, and PVI were superior to CVP and ∆IVC. However, there is no data supporting any of the above mentioned as being the best maneuver. Additionally, other well-established tests, such as the passive leg raising test, end-expiratory occlusion test, and tidal volume challenge, are also reliable.
- Publication
Critical Care, 2024, Vol 28, Issue 1, p1
- ISSN
1364-8535
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.1186/s13054-024-05078-9