Citation Information :
Angappan S, Vasudevan A, Badhe A. The comparison of stroke volume variation with central venous pressure in predicting fluid responsiveness in septic patients with acute circulatory failure. Indian J Crit Care Med 2015; 19 (7):394-400.
Purpose: The present study was designed to investigate the efficacy of stroke volume variation (SVV) in predicting fluid responsiveness and compare it to traditional measures of volume status assessment like central venous pressure (CVP). Methods: Forty-five mechanically ventilated patients in sepsis with acute circulatory failure. Patients were not included when they had atrial fibrillation, other severe arrhythmias, permanent pacemaker, or needed mechanical cardiac support. Furthermore, excluded were patients with hypoxemia and a CVP >12. Patients received volume expansion in the form of 500 ml of 6% hydroxyethyl starch. Results: The volume expansion-induced increase in cardiac index (CI) was >15% in 29 patients (labeled responders) and <15% in 16 patients (labeled nonresponders). Before volume expansion, SVV was higher in responders than in nonresponders. Receiver operating characteristic curves analysis showed that SVV was a more accurate indicator of fluid responsiveness than CVP. Before volume expansion, an SVV value of 13% allowed discrimination between responders and nonresponders with a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 89%. Volume expansion-induced changes in CI weakly and positively correlated with SVV before volume expansion. Volume expansion decreased SVV from 18.86 ± 4.35 to 7.57 ± 1.80 and volume expansion-induced changes in SVV moderately correlated with volume expansion-induced changes in CI. Conclusions: When predicting fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients in septic shock, SVV is more effective than CVP. Nevertheless, the overall correlation of baseline SVV with increases in CI remains poor. Trends in SVV, as reflected by decreases with volume replacement, seem to correlate much better with increases in CI.
Wang P, Zhou M, Rana MW, Ba ZF, Chaudry IH. Differential alterations in microvascular perfusion in various organs during early and late sepsis. Am J Physiol 1992;263:G38-43.
Kumar A, Anel R, Bunnell E, Habet K, Zanotti S, Marshall S, et al. Pulmonary artery occlusion pressure and central venous pressure fail to predict ventricular filling volume, cardiac performance, or the response to volume infusion in normal subjects. Crit Care Med 2004;32:691-9.
Hamilton-Davies C, Mythen MG, Salmon JB, Jacobson D, Shukla A, Webb AR. Comparison of commonly used clinical indicators of hypovolaemia with gastrointestinal tonometry. Intensive Care Med 1997;23:276-81.
Liu H, Konia M, Li Z, Fleming N. The comparison of stroke volume variation and arterial pressure based cardiac output with standard hemodynamic measurements during cardiac surgery. The Internet J Anesthesiol 2010;22:1-20.
Feissel M, Michard F, Mangin I, Ruyer O, Faller JP, Teboul JL. Respiratory changes in aortic blood velocity as an indicator of fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients with septic shock. Chest 2001;119:867-73.
Suehiro K, Okutani R. Stroke volume variation as a predictor of fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing one-lung ventilation. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2010;24:772-5.
Biais M, Nouette-Gaulain K, Cottenceau V, Revel P, Sztark F. Uncalibrated pulse contour-derived stroke volume variation predicts fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients undergoing liver transplantation. Br J Anaesth 2008;101:761-8.
Lahner D, Kabon B, Marschalek C, Chiari A, Pestel G, Kaider A, et al. Evaluation of stroke volume variation obtained by arterial pulse contour analysis to predict fluid responsiveness intraoperatively. Br J Anaesth 2009;103:346-51.
Perner A, Faber T. Stroke volume variation does not predict fluid responsiveness in patients with septic shock on pressure support ventilation. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2006;50:1068-73.
American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Conference. Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. Crit Care Med 1992;20:864-74.
Daihua Y, Wei C, Xude S, Linong Y, Changjun G, Hui Z. The effect of body position changes on stroke volume variation in 66 mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis. J Crit Care 2012;27:416.e7-12.
Cannesson M, Musard H, Desebbe O, Boucau C, Simon R, Hénaine R, et al. The ability of stroke volume variations obtained with Vigileo/FloTrac system to monitor fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. Anesth Analg 2009;108:513-7.
Michard F, Boussat S, Chemla D, Anguel N, Mercat A, Lecarpentier Y, et al. Relation between respiratory changes in arterial pulse pressure and fluid responsiveness in septic patients with acute circulatory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;162:134-8.
Magder S. More respect for the CVP. Intensive Care Med 1998;24:651-3.
Packman MI, Rackow EC. Optimum left heart filling pressure during fluid resuscitation of patients with hypovolemic and septic shock. Crit Care Med 1983;11:165-9.
Tavernier B, Makhotine O, Lebuffe G, Dupont J, Scherpereel P. Systolic pressure variation as a guide to fluid therapy in patients with sepsis-induced hypotension. Anesthesiology 1998;89:1313-21.
Reuse C, Vincent JL, Pinsky MR. Measurements of right ventricular volumes during fluid challenge. Chest 1990;98:1450-4.
Magder S, Georgiadis G, Cheong T. Respiratory variations in right atrial pressure predict the response to fluid challenge. J Crit Care 1992;7:76-85.
Mehta Y, Chand RK, Sawhney R, Bhise M, Singh A, Trehan N. Cardiac output monitoring: Comparison of a new arterial pressure waveform analysis to the bolus thermodilution technique in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2008;22:394-9.