4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Respiratory variations in aortic blood flow predict fluid responsiveness in ventilated children

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 34, 期 5, 页码 888-894

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-008-1021-z

关键词

aortic blood flow velocity; cardiac output; septic shock; mechanical ventilation; fluid responsiveness; children

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate whether respiratory variations in aortic blood flow velocity (Delta Vpeak ao), systolic arterial pressure (Delta PS) and pulse pressure (Delta PP) could accurately predict fluid responsiveness in ventilated children. Design and setting: Prospective study in a 18-bed pediatric intensive care unit. Patients: Twenty-six children [median age 28.5 (16-44) months] with preserved left ventricular (LV) function. Intervention:Standardized volume expansion (VE). Measurements and main results: Analysis of aortic blood flow by transthoracic pulsed-Doppler allowed LV stroke volume measurement and on-line Delta Vpeak ao calculation. The VE-induced increase in LV stroke volume was > 15% in 18 patients (responders) and < 15% in 8 (non-responders). Before VE, the Delta Vpeak ao in responders was higher than that in non-responders [19% (12.1-26.3) vs. 9% (7.3-11.8), p = 0.001], whereas Delta PP and Delta PS did not significantly differ between groups. The prediction of fluid responsiveness was higher with Delta Vpeak ao [ROC curve area 0.85 (95% IC 0.99-1.8), p = 0.001] than with Delta PS (0.64) or Delta PP (0.59). The best cut-off for Delta Vpeak ao was 12%, with sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of 81.2%, 85.7%, 93% and 66.6%, respectively. A positive linear correlation was found between baseline Delta Vpeak ao and VE-induced gain in stroke volume (rho = 0.68, p = 0.001). Conclusions: While respiratory variations in aortic blood flow velocity measured by pulsed Doppler before VE accurately predict the effects of VE, Delta PS and Delta PP are of little value in ventilated children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据