Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31602550›Full record

ArticleAnnals of intensive care2019

Evaluation of least significant changes of pulse contour analysis-derived parameters.

Hugues de Courson, Loic Ferrer, Grégoire Cane, Eric Verchère, Musa Sesay, Karine Nouette-Gaulain, Matthieu Biais

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of intensive care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04934943 ("Mini Fluid Challenge Assessment), which is not on this map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04934943 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

"Mini Fluid Challenge Assessment: a Comparison Among Three Hemodynamic Tools"

TypeobservationalSponsorHumanitas Clinical and Research CenterRan2025 to 2025Enrolled45ConditionsSepsis, Shock, Septic, Critically IllArmsmini_FC
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Measurement error of pulse pressure variation.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Prediction of fluid responsiveness. What's new?Annals of intensive care · 2022
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Hugues de CoursonDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Pellegrin Bordeaux University Hospital, 33000, Bordeaux, France.
Loic FerrerBiostatistics Unit, Institut Curie, U900, Hôpital René Huguenin Saint-Cloud, Saint-Cloud, France.
Grégoire CaneDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Pellegrin Bordeaux University Hospital, 33000, Bordeaux, France.
Eric VerchèreDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Pellegrin Bordeaux University Hospital, 33000, Bordeaux, France.
Musa SesayDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Pellegrin Bordeaux University Hospital, 33000, Bordeaux, France.
Karine Nouette-GaulainDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Pellegrin Bordeaux University Hospital, 33000, Bordeaux, France.
Matthieu BiaisDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Pellegrin Bordeaux University Hospital, 33000, Bordeaux, France. matthieu.biais@chu-bordeaux.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany maneuvers assessing fluid responsiveness (minifluid challenge, lung recruitment maneuver, end-expiratory occlusion test, passive leg raising) are considered as positive when small variations in cardiac index, stroke volume index, stroke volume variation or pulse pressure variation occur. Pulse contour analysis allows continuous and real-time cardiac index, stroke volume, stroke volume variation and pulse pressure variation estimations. To use these maneuvers with pulse contour analysis, the knowledge of the minimal change that needs to be measured by a device to recognize a real change (least significant change) has to be studied. The aim of this study was to evaluate the least significant change of cardiac index, stroke volume index, stroke volume variation and pulse pressure variation obtained using pulse contour analysis (ProAQT

methodsIn this observational study, we included 50 mechanically ventilated patients undergoing neurosurgery in the operating room. Cardiac index, stroke volume index, pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation obtained using ProAQT

resultsLeast significant changes statistically differed over time for cardiac index, stroke volume index, pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation (p < 0.001). Least significant changes ranged from 1.3 to 0.7% for cardiac index, from 1.3 to 0.8% for stroke volume index, from 10 to 4.9% for pulse pressure variation and from 10.8 to 4.3% for stroke volume variation.

conclusionTo conclude, the present study suggests that pulse contour analysis is able to detect rapid and small changes in cardiac index and stroke volume index, but the interpretation of rapid and small changes of pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation must be done with caution.

Indexed as

PrecisionPulse contourPulse pressure variationStroke volumeStroke volume variation

Identifiers

PMID31602550
PMCPMC6787117

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.