Comparison between respiratory changes in the inferior vena cava diameter and pulse pressure variation to predict fluid responsiveness in postoperative patients

Página do item simplificado
dc.citation.volume34
dc.contributor.authorde Oliveira, Olivia Haun [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorRezende de Freitas, Flavio Geraldo [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorLadeira, Renata Teixeira [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorFischer, Claudio Henrique [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorBafi, Antonio Tonete [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorPontes Azevedo, Luciano Cesar [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorMachado, Flavia Ribeiro [UNIFESP]
dc.coveragePhiladelphia
dc.date.accessioned2020-08-14T13:44:07Z
dc.date.available2020-08-14T13:44:07Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.description.abstractPurpose: The objective of our study was to assess the reliability of the distensibility index of the inferior vena cava (dIVC) as a predictor of fluid responsiveness in postoperative, mechanically ventilated patients and compare its accuracy with that of the pulse pressure variation (PPV) measurement. Materials and methods: We included postoperative mechanically ventilated and sedated patients who underwent volume expansion with 500 mL of crystalloids over 15 minutes. A response to fluid infusion was defined as a 15% increase in the left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral according to transthoracic echocardiography. The inferior vena cava diameters were recorded by a subcostal view using the M-mode and the PPV by automatic calculation. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated for the baseline dIVC and PPV. Results: Twenty patients were included. The area under the ROC curve for dIVC was 0.84 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.0), and the best cutoff value was 16% (sensitivity, 67%en
dc.description.abstractspecificity, 100%). The area under the ROC curve for PPV was 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.0), and the best cutoff was 12.4% (sensitivity, 89%en
dc.description.abstractspecificity, 100%). A noninferiority test showed that dIVC cannot replace PPV to predict fluid responsiveness (P = .28). Conclusion: The individual PPV discriminative properties for predicting fluid responsiveness in postoperative patients seemed superior to those of dIVC. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.en
dc.description.affiliationUniv Fed Sao Paulo, Dept Anestesiol Dor & Terapia Intens, BR-04024900 Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUniv Fed Sao Paulo, Dept Cardiol, BR-04024900 Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUnifespUniv Fed Sao Paulo, Dept Anestesiol Dor & Terapia Intens, BR-04024900 Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUnifespUniv Fed Sao Paulo, Dept Cardiol, BR-04024900 Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
dc.description.sourceWeb of Science
dc.format.extent46-49
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.03.017
dc.identifier.citationJournal Of Critical Care. Philadelphia, v. 34, p. 46-49, 2016.
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.03.017
dc.identifier.issn0883-9441
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/57520
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000377704200011
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherW B Saunders Co-Elsevier Inc
dc.relation.ispartofJournal Of Critical Care
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.subjectFluid therapyen
dc.subjectHemodynamicsen
dc.subjectInferior vena cavaen
dc.subjectEchocardiographyen
dc.subjectPostoperative careen
dc.titleComparison between respiratory changes in the inferior vena cava diameter and pulse pressure variation to predict fluid responsiveness in postoperative patientsen
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
Arquivos
Coleções
EPM - Artigos