4.1 Article

Pulse pressure variation and pleth variability index as predictors of fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing spinal surgery in the prone position

Journal

THERAPEUTICS AND CLINICAL RISK MANAGEMENT
Volume 14, Issue -, Pages 1175-1183

Publisher

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S170395

Keywords

fluid therapy; intraoperative monitoring; prone position; stroke volume

Funding

  1. Yonsei University College of Medicine [6-2015-0115]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: This study investigated the ability of pulse pressure variation (PPV) and pleth variability index (PVI) to predict fluid responsiveness of patients undergoing spinal surgery in the prone position. Patients and methods: A total of 53 patients undergoing posterior lumbar spinal fusion in the prone position on a Jackson table were studied. PPV, PVI, and hemodynamic and respiratory variables were measured both before and after the administration of 6 mL/kg colloid in both the supine and prone positions. Fluid responsiveness was defined as a 15% or greater increase in stroke volume index, as assessed by esophageal Doppler monitor after fluid loading. Results: In the supine position, 40 patients were responders. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for PPV and PVI were 0.783 [95% CI 0.648-0.884, P<0.001] and 0.814 (95% CI 0.684-0.908, P<0.001), respectively. The optimal cut-off values of PPV and PVI were 10% (sensitivity 75%, specificity 62%) and 8% (sensitivity 78%, specificity 77%), respectively. In the prone position, 27 patients were responders. The areas under the ROC curves for PPV and PVI were 0.781 (95% CI 0.646-0.883, P<0.001) and 0.756 (95% CI 0.618-0.863, P<0.001), respectively. The optimal cut-off values of PPV and PVI were 7% (sensitivity 82%, specificity 62%) and 8% (sensitivity 67%, specificity 69%), respectively. Conclusion: Both PPV and PVI were able to predict fluid responsiveness; their predictive abilities were maintained in the prone position.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available