Background Stroke volume variation （SW） is a robust indicator of fluid responsiveness during volume change. We compared the sensibility of SW by Vigileo/Flotrac to central venous pressure （CVP） when volume changes...Background Stroke volume variation （SW） is a robust indicator of fluid responsiveness during volume change. We compared the sensibility of SW by Vigileo/Flotrac to central venous pressure （CVP） when volume changes in patients undergoing intraoperative acute normovolemic hemodilution （ANH） and acute hypervolemic hemodilution （AHH）. Methods Forty patients were randomly divided into an ANH group （n=20） and an AHH group （n=20）. All patients received general anesthesia and were mechanically ventilated. Data were collected from 7 different time-points in the ANH group： baseline, after withdrawal of 5%, 10%, and 15% of the estimated blood volume （EBV） and after replacement with an equal volume of 6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 （HES） in 5% EBV increments to baseline. There were four time points in the AHH group： baseline, after 5%, 10%, and 15% expansion of the EBV with 6% HES. At each time-point, CVP, SW and other hemodynamic parameters measurements were obtained. Results After removal of 10% and 15% EBV, SVV significantly increased from 10.9±3.0 to 14.1±3.4 and 10.9±3.0 to16.0±3.3 （P 〈0.01）, and returned to a final value of 10.6±3.4 after volume replacement. The CVP value was unchanged after removal and replacement of 15% of the EBV. There were no significant changes in SW after 5%, 10% whereas there was a significant reduction after 15% （8.2±1.7） expansion of the EBV compared with baseline （9.9±1.8） （P=0.033）. However, there was a significant increase in CVP after10% （10.3±2.4）, 15% （11.3±2.2） expansion of the EBV compared with baseline （8.2±2.7） （P 〈0.01）. Conclusion SW is a more sensitive parameter for volume than CVP during hypovolemia, on the contrary CVP is more sensitive than SW during hypervolemia.展开更多
Background and objective： Stroke volume variation（SVV） has high sensitivity and specificity in predicting fluid responsiveness. However, sinus rhythm（SR） and controlled mechanical ventilation（CV） are mandatory ...Background and objective： Stroke 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 Pi CCO-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. Methods： The prevalence of SR and CV was documented immediately before 1241 thermodilution measurements in 88 patients. Results： In 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%; P0.001）. 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. Conclusions： The 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.展开更多
Objective:To investigate the effects of perioperative goal-directed fluid therapy(GDFT)on intraoperative fluid balance,postoperative morbidity,and mortality.Methods:This is a prospective randomized study,and 90 patien...Objective:To investigate the effects of perioperative goal-directed fluid therapy(GDFT)on intraoperative fluid balance,postoperative morbidity,and mortality.Methods:This is a prospective randomized study,and 90 patients who underwent elective open gastrointestinal cancer surgery between April 2017 and May 2018 were included.Patients were randomized into 2 groups that received liberal fluid therapy(the LFT group,n=45)and goal-directed fluid therapy(the GDFT group,n=45).Patients’Colorectal Physiologic and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and Morbidity(CR-POSSUM)physiological score,Charlson Comorbidity Index(CCI),perioperative vasopressor and inotrope use,postoperative AKIN classification,postoperative intensive care unit(ICU)hospitalization,hospital stay,and 30-day mortality were recorded.Results:The volume of crystalloid used perioperatively and the total volume of fluid were significantly lower in the GDFT group compared to the LFT group(P<0.05).CR-POSSUM physiological score and CCI were significantly higher in the GDFT group(P<0.05).Although perioperative vasopressor and inotrope use was significantly higher in the GDFT group(P<0.05),postoperative acute kidney injury development was not affected.Postoperative mortality was determined to be similar in both groups(P>0.05).Conclusion:Although GDFT was demonstrated to be a good alternative method to LFT in open gastrointestinal cancer surgery,and it can prevent perioperative fluid overload,and the postoperative results are comparable in the two groups.展开更多
Background Few studies have reported the effect of different volume responsiveness evaluation methods on volume therapy results and prognosis.This study was carried out to investigate the effect of two volume responsi...Background Few studies have reported the effect of different volume responsiveness evaluation methods on volume therapy results and prognosis.This study was carried out to investigate the effect of two volume responsiveness evaluation methods,stroke volume variation （SW） and stroke volume changes before and after passive leg raising （PLR-ASV）,on fluid resuscitation and prognosis in septic shock patients.Methods Septic shock patients admitted to the Department of Critical Care Medicine of Zhejiang Hospital,China,from March 2011 to March 2013,who were under controlled ventilation and without arrhythmia,were studied.Patients were randomly assigned to the SVV group or the PLR-ASV group.The SVV group used the Pulse Indication Continuous Cardiac Output monitoring of SW,and responsiveness was defined as SW-＞12％.The PLR-ASV group used ASV before and after PLR as the indicator,and responsiveness was defined as ASV ＞15％.Six hours after fluid resuscitation,changes in tissue perfusion indicators （lactate,lactate clearance rate,central venous oxygen saturation （SCVO2）,base excess （BE））,organ function indicators （white blood cell count,neutrophil percentage,platelet count,total protein,albumin,alanine aminotransferase,total and direct bilirubin,blood urea nitrogen,serum creatinine,serum creatine kinase,oxygenation index）,fluid balance （6-and 24-hour fluid input） and the use of cardiotonic drugs （dobutamine）,prognostic indicators （the time and rate of achieving early goal-directed therapy （EGDT） standards,duration of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit stay,and 28-day mortality） were observed.Results Six hours after fluid resuscitation,there were no significant differences in temperature,heart rate,blood pressure,SpO2,organ function indicators,or tissue perfusion indicators between the two groups （P ＞0.06）.The 6-and 24-hour fluid input was slightly less in the SW group than in the PLR-ASV group,but the difference was not statistically significant （P ＞0.05）.The SW group used significantly more dobutamine than the PLR-ASV group （33.3％ vs.10.7％,P =0.039）.There were no significant differences in the time （（4.8±1.4） h vs.（4.3±1.3） h,P=0.142） and rate of achieving EGDT standards （90.0％ vs.92.9％,P =0.698）,or in the length of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay.The 28-day mortality in the SW group （16.7％ （5/30）） was slightly higher than the PLR-ASV group （14.3％ （4/28））,but the difference was not statistically significant （P =0.788）.Conclusions In septic shock patients under controlled ventilation and without arrhythmia,using SW or PLR-ASV methods to evaluate volume responsiveness has a similar effect on volume therapy results and prognosis.The evaluation and dynamic monitoring of volume responsiveness is more important for fluid resuscitation than the evaluation methods themselves.Choosing different methods to evaluate volume responsiveness has no significant influence on the effect of volume therapy and prognosis.展开更多
文摘Background Stroke volume variation （SW） is a robust indicator of fluid responsiveness during volume change. We compared the sensibility of SW by Vigileo/Flotrac to central venous pressure （CVP） when volume changes in patients undergoing intraoperative acute normovolemic hemodilution （ANH） and acute hypervolemic hemodilution （AHH）. Methods Forty patients were randomly divided into an ANH group （n=20） and an AHH group （n=20）. All patients received general anesthesia and were mechanically ventilated. Data were collected from 7 different time-points in the ANH group： baseline, after withdrawal of 5%, 10%, and 15% of the estimated blood volume （EBV） and after replacement with an equal volume of 6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 （HES） in 5% EBV increments to baseline. There were four time points in the AHH group： baseline, after 5%, 10%, and 15% expansion of the EBV with 6% HES. At each time-point, CVP, SW and other hemodynamic parameters measurements were obtained. Results After removal of 10% and 15% EBV, SVV significantly increased from 10.9±3.0 to 14.1±3.4 and 10.9±3.0 to16.0±3.3 （P 〈0.01）, and returned to a final value of 10.6±3.4 after volume replacement. The CVP value was unchanged after removal and replacement of 15% of the EBV. There were no significant changes in SW after 5%, 10% whereas there was a significant reduction after 15% （8.2±1.7） expansion of the EBV compared with baseline （9.9±1.8） （P=0.033）. However, there was a significant increase in CVP after10% （10.3±2.4）, 15% （11.3±2.2） expansion of the EBV compared with baseline （8.2±2.7） （P 〈0.01）. Conclusion SW is a more sensitive parameter for volume than CVP during hypovolemia, on the contrary CVP is more sensitive than SW during hypervolemia.
文摘Background and objective： Stroke 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 Pi CCO-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. Methods： The prevalence of SR and CV was documented immediately before 1241 thermodilution measurements in 88 patients. Results： In 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%; P0.001）. 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. Conclusions： The 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.
文摘Objective:To investigate the effects of perioperative goal-directed fluid therapy(GDFT)on intraoperative fluid balance,postoperative morbidity,and mortality.Methods:This is a prospective randomized study,and 90 patients who underwent elective open gastrointestinal cancer surgery between April 2017 and May 2018 were included.Patients were randomized into 2 groups that received liberal fluid therapy(the LFT group,n=45)and goal-directed fluid therapy(the GDFT group,n=45).Patients’Colorectal Physiologic and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and Morbidity(CR-POSSUM)physiological score,Charlson Comorbidity Index(CCI),perioperative vasopressor and inotrope use,postoperative AKIN classification,postoperative intensive care unit(ICU)hospitalization,hospital stay,and 30-day mortality were recorded.Results:The volume of crystalloid used perioperatively and the total volume of fluid were significantly lower in the GDFT group compared to the LFT group(P<0.05).CR-POSSUM physiological score and CCI were significantly higher in the GDFT group(P<0.05).Although perioperative vasopressor and inotrope use was significantly higher in the GDFT group(P<0.05),postoperative acute kidney injury development was not affected.Postoperative mortality was determined to be similar in both groups(P>0.05).Conclusion:Although GDFT was demonstrated to be a good alternative method to LFT in open gastrointestinal cancer surgery,and it can prevent perioperative fluid overload,and the postoperative results are comparable in the two groups.
文摘Background Few studies have reported the effect of different volume responsiveness evaluation methods on volume therapy results and prognosis.This study was carried out to investigate the effect of two volume responsiveness evaluation methods,stroke volume variation （SW） and stroke volume changes before and after passive leg raising （PLR-ASV）,on fluid resuscitation and prognosis in septic shock patients.Methods Septic shock patients admitted to the Department of Critical Care Medicine of Zhejiang Hospital,China,from March 2011 to March 2013,who were under controlled ventilation and without arrhythmia,were studied.Patients were randomly assigned to the SVV group or the PLR-ASV group.The SVV group used the Pulse Indication Continuous Cardiac Output monitoring of SW,and responsiveness was defined as SW-＞12％.The PLR-ASV group used ASV before and after PLR as the indicator,and responsiveness was defined as ASV ＞15％.Six hours after fluid resuscitation,changes in tissue perfusion indicators （lactate,lactate clearance rate,central venous oxygen saturation （SCVO2）,base excess （BE））,organ function indicators （white blood cell count,neutrophil percentage,platelet count,total protein,albumin,alanine aminotransferase,total and direct bilirubin,blood urea nitrogen,serum creatinine,serum creatine kinase,oxygenation index）,fluid balance （6-and 24-hour fluid input） and the use of cardiotonic drugs （dobutamine）,prognostic indicators （the time and rate of achieving early goal-directed therapy （EGDT） standards,duration of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit stay,and 28-day mortality） were observed.Results Six hours after fluid resuscitation,there were no significant differences in temperature,heart rate,blood pressure,SpO2,organ function indicators,or tissue perfusion indicators between the two groups （P ＞0.06）.The 6-and 24-hour fluid input was slightly less in the SW group than in the PLR-ASV group,but the difference was not statistically significant （P ＞0.05）.The SW group used significantly more dobutamine than the PLR-ASV group （33.3％ vs.10.7％,P =0.039）.There were no significant differences in the time （（4.8±1.4） h vs.（4.3±1.3） h,P=0.142） and rate of achieving EGDT standards （90.0％ vs.92.9％,P =0.698）,or in the length of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay.The 28-day mortality in the SW group （16.7％ （5/30）） was slightly higher than the PLR-ASV group （14.3％ （4/28））,but the difference was not statistically significant （P =0.788）.Conclusions In septic shock patients under controlled ventilation and without arrhythmia,using SW or PLR-ASV methods to evaluate volume responsiveness has a similar effect on volume therapy results and prognosis.The evaluation and dynamic monitoring of volume responsiveness is more important for fluid resuscitation than the evaluation methods themselves.Choosing different methods to evaluate volume responsiveness has no significant influence on the effect of volume therapy and prognosis.
