ArticleJournal of Zhejiang University. Science. B2018
Mandatory criteria for the application of variability-based parameters of fluid responsiveness: a prospective study in different groups of ICU patients.
Article in Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reliability of bioreactance and arterial waveform analyses in monitoring stroke volume variation during cardiac surgery.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2026Observational
- Multi-biomarker strategy for prediction of myocardial dysfunction and mortality in sepsis.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveStroke volume variation (SVV) has high sensitivity and specificity in predicting fluid responsiveness. However, sinus rhythm (SR) and controlled mechanical ventilation (CV) are mandatory for their application. Several studies suggest a limited applicability of SVV in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. We hypothesized that the applicability of SVV might be different over time and within certain subgroups of ICU patients. Therefore, we analysed the prevalence of SR and CV in ICU patients during the first 24 h of PiCCO-monitoring (primary endpoint) and during the total ICU stay. We also investigated the applicability of SVV in the subgroups of patients with sepsis, cirrhosis, and acute pancreatitis.
methodsThe prevalence of SR and CV was documented immediately before 1241 thermodilution measurements in 88 patients.
resultsIn all measurements, SVV was applicable in about 24%. However, the applicability of SVV was time-dependent: the prevalence of both SR and CV was higher during the first 24 h compared to measurements thereafter (36.1% vs. 21.9%; P<0.001). Within different subgroups, the applicability during the first 24 h of monitoring ranged between 0% in acute pancreatitis, 25.5% in liver failure, and 48.9% in patients without pancreatitis, liver failure, pneumonia or sepsis.
conclusionsThe applicability of SVV in a predominantly medical ICU is only about 25%-35%. The prevalence of both mandatory criteria decreases over time during the ICU stay. Furthermore, the applicability is particularly low in patients with acute pancreatitis and liver failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.