Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39217370›Full record

SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2024

Assessment of fluid responsiveness using pulse pressure variation, stroke volume variation, plethysmographic variability index, central venous pressure, and inferior vena cava variation in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Renato Carneiro de Freitas Chaves, Carmen Silvia Valente Barbas, Veronica Neves Fialho Queiroz, Ary Serpa Neto, Rodrigo Octavio Deliberato, Adriano José Pereira, Karina Tavares Timenetsky, João Manoel Silva Júnior, Flávio Takaoka, Daniel de Backer and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 6 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Rethinking ejection fraction for anesthesiologists: a narrative review.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2026
    Review
  18. Observational
  19. Observational
  20. Article
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

12 authors.

Renato Carneiro de Freitas ChavesDepartment of Intensive Care, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. chavesrcf@hotmail.com.
Carmen Silvia Valente BarbasDepartment of Intensive Care, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Veronica Neves Fialho QueirozDepartment of Anesthesiology, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Ary Serpa NetoDepartment of Intensive Care, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Rodrigo Octavio DeliberatoMIT Critical Data, Laboratory for Computational Physiology, Harvard-MIT Health Sciences and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Adriano José PereiraDepartment of Intensive Care, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Karina Tavares TimenetskyDepartment of Intensive Care, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
João Manoel Silva JúniorDepartment of Intensive Care, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Flávio TakaokaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Daniel de BackerDepartment of Intensive Care, CHIREC Hospitals, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Leo Anthony CeliMIT Critical Data, Laboratory for Computational Physiology, Harvard-MIT Health Sciences and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Thiago Domingos CorrêaDepartment of Intensive Care, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceManeuvers assessing fluid responsiveness before an intravascular volume expansion may limit useless fluid administration, which in turn may improve outcomes.

objectiveTo describe maneuvers for assessing fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42019146781. INFORMATION SOURCES AND SEARCH: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and Web of Science were search from inception to 08/08/2023. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA COLLECTION: Prospective and intervention studies were selected. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data for each maneuver were reported individually and data from the five most employed maneuvers were aggregated. A traditional and a Bayesian meta-analysis approach were performed.

resultsA total of 69 studies, encompassing 3185 fluid challenges and 2711 patients were analyzed. The prevalence of fluid responsiveness was 49.9%. Pulse pressure variation (PPV) was studied in 40 studies, mean threshold with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) = 11.5 (10.5-12.4)%, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) with 95% CI was 0.87 (0.84-0.90). Stroke volume variation (SVV) was studied in 24 studies, mean threshold with 95% CI = 12.1 (10.9-13.3)%, and AUC with 95% CI was 0.87 (0.84-0.91). The plethysmographic variability index (PVI) was studied in 17 studies, mean threshold = 13.8 (12.3-15.3)%, and AUC was 0.88 (0.82-0.94). Central venous pressure (CVP) was studied in 12 studies, mean threshold with 95% CI = 9.0 (7.7-10.1) mmHg, and AUC with 95% CI was 0.77 (0.69-0.87). Inferior vena cava variation (∆IVC) was studied in 8 studies, mean threshold = 15.4 (13.3-17.6)%, and AUC with 95% CI was 0.83 (0.78-0.89).

conclusionsFluid responsiveness can be reliably assessed in adult patients under mechanical ventilation. Among the five maneuvers compared in predicting fluid responsiveness, PPV, SVV, and PVI were superior to CVP and ∆IVC. However, there is no data supporting any of the above mentioned as being the best maneuver. Additionally, other well-established tests, such as the passive leg raising test, end-expiratory occlusion test, and tidal volume challenge, are also reliable.

Indexed as

Central Venous PressureFluid TherapyPlethysmographyRespiration, ArtificialStroke VolumeVena Cava, InferiorBlood PressureHumansAnesthesiologyCardiac outputEchocardiographyHemodynamicIntensive care

Identifiers

PMID39217370
PMCPMC11366151

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.