ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2022
Accuracy of pulse pressure variations for fluid responsiveness prediction in mechanically ventilated patients with biphasic positive airway pressure mode.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The accuracy of pulse pressure variation (PPV) to predict fluid responsiveness using pressure-controlled (PC) instead of volume-controlled modes is under debate. To specifically address this issue, we designed a study to evaluate the accuracy of PPV to predict fluid responsiveness in severe septic patients who were mechanically ventilated with biphasic positive airway pressure (BIPAP) PC-ventilation mode. 45 patients with sepsis or septic shock and who were mechanically ventilated with BIPAP mode and a target tidal volume of 7-8 ml/kg were included. PPV was automatically assessed at baseline and after a standard fluid challenge (Ringer's lactate 500 ml). A 15% increase in stroke volume (SV) defined fluid responsiveness. The predictive value of PPV was evaluated through a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and "gray zone" statistical approach. 20 (44%) patients were considered fluid responders. We identified a significant relationship between PPV decrease after volume expansion and SV increase (spearman ρ = - 0.5, p < 0.001). The area under ROC curve for PPV was 0.71 (95%CI 0.56-0.87, p = 0.007). The best cut-off (based on Youden's index) was 8%, with a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 60%. Using a gray zone approach, we identified that PPV values comprised between 5 and 15% do not allow a reliable fluid responsiveness prediction. In critically ill septic patients ventilated under BIPAP mode, PPV appears to be an accurate method for fluid responsiveness prediction. However, PPV values comprised between 5 and 15% constitute a gray zone that does not allow a reliable fluid responsiveness prediction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34865181What 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.