Observational studyBMC anesthesiology2025
Determination of the cut-off value for estimated stroke volume variation as a predictor of fluid responsiveness.
Observational study in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEstimated stroke volume variation (esSVV) serves as a noninvasive indicator of fluid responsiveness measured using the estimated continuous cardiac output (esCCO) system. However, the cutoff value for esSVV has not yet been established. The aim of this study was to determine the cutoff value for esSVV.
methodsIn this prospective observational study, patients scheduled for general anesthesia were included. Following anesthesia induction, the esCCO system was calibrated, and the blood pressure at that time was recorded as the baseline value. A fluid challenge was initiated when the blood pressure decreased by > 10% from the baseline systolic pressure, at least 5 min after calibration. A colloidal solution (300 ml) was administered over a 15-min period. The esSV measured 5 min before infusion was compared to the maximal esSV recorded 5 min after completing the infusion. Moreover, patients with an esSV increase of > 10% were categorized into the responder group, whereas those with a < 10% increase were classified into the non-responder group. A receiver operating characteristic curve was generated, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated.
resultsWe identified 43 and 40 cases of esSVV and SVV, respectively. The AUC for esSVV was 0.73, with a threshold value of 7.3%, whereas that for SVV was 0.65, with a threshold value of 12%.
conclusionThe established cutoff value for esSVV was 7.3%. Hence, it may be a useful tool for managing circulation, particularly given that its cutoff value has now been determined.
trial registrationUniversity Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN register no. UMIN000049595 on November 24, 2022).
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.