Journal of anesthesia · 2023
Stroke volume variation and dynamic arterial elastance predict fluid responsiveness even in thoracoscopic esophagectomy: a prospective observational study.
Наблюдательное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hikasa Yukiko, Suzuki Satoshi, Tanabe Shunsuke, Noma Kazuhiro, Shirakawa Yasuhiro, Fujiwara Toshiyoshi, Morimatsu Hiroshi
Аннотация
PURPOSE: It remains unknown whether stroke volume variation (SVV), pulse pressure variation (PPV), and dynamic arterial elastance (Eadyn) are suitable for monitoring fluid management during thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) in the prone position with one-lung ventilation and artificial pneumothorax. Our study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of SVV, PVV, and Eadyn in predicting the fluid responsiveness in these patients.
METHODS: We recruited 24 patients who had undergone TE. Patients with a mean arterial blood pressure ≤ 65 mmHg received a 200-ml bolus of 6% hydroxyethyl starch over 10 min. Fluid responders showed the stroke volume index ≥ 15% 5 min after the fluid bolus. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated and area under the ROC curve (AUROC) was calculated.
RESULTS: We obtained 61 fluid bolus data points, of which 20 were responders and 41 were non-responders. The median SVV before the fluid bolus in responders was significantly higher than that in non-responders (18% [interquartile range (IQR) 13-21] vs. 12% [IQR 8-15], P = 0.001). Eadyn was significantly lower in responders than in non-responders (0.55 [IQR 0.45-0.78] vs. 0.91 [IQR 0.67-1.00], P < 0.001). There was no difference in the PPV between the groups. The AUROC was 0.76 for SVV (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.89, P = 0.001), 0.56 for PPV (95% CI 0.41-0.71, P = 0.44), and 0.82 for Eadyn (95% CI 0.69-0.95, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: SVV and Eadyn are reliable parameters for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing TE.
METHODS: We recruited 24 patients who had undergone TE. Patients with a mean arterial blood pressure ≤ 65 mmHg received a 200-ml bolus of 6% hydroxyethyl starch over 10 min. Fluid responders showed the stroke volume index ≥ 15% 5 min after the fluid bolus. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated and area under the ROC curve (AUROC) was calculated.
RESULTS: We obtained 61 fluid bolus data points, of which 20 were responders and 41 were non-responders. The median SVV before the fluid bolus in responders was significantly higher than that in non-responders (18% [interquartile range (IQR) 13-21] vs. 12% [IQR 8-15], P = 0.001). Eadyn was significantly lower in responders than in non-responders (0.55 [IQR 0.45-0.78] vs. 0.91 [IQR 0.67-1.00], P < 0.001). There was no difference in the PPV between the groups. The AUROC was 0.76 for SVV (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.89, P = 0.001), 0.56 for PPV (95% CI 0.41-0.71, P = 0.44), and 0.82 for Eadyn (95% CI 0.69-0.95, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: SVV and Eadyn are reliable parameters for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing TE.