Vallée Fabrice, Richard Jean Christophe M, Mari Arnaud, Gallas Thomas, Arsac Eric, Verlaan Pascale Sanchez, Chousterman Benjamin, Samii Kamran, Genestal Michèle, Fourcade Olivier
Pôle Anesthésie et Réanimation, Unité de Réanimation Polyvalente de Purpan, GRCB 48, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.
Intensive Care Med. 2009 Jun;35(6):1004-10. doi: 10.1007/s00134-009-1478-4. Epub 2009 Apr 4.
To evaluate the ability of DeltaPP/DeltaP [pulse pressure variations (DeltaPP) adjusted by alveolar pressure variations (DeltaP = Pplat-PEEPtot)] in predicting fluid responsiveness, to compare its accuracy to that of DeltaPP used alone and to evaluate the influence of tidal volume (Vt) on these two indices.
Prospective study.
A 22-bed general intensive care unit (ICU).
Eighty-four surgical or medical ventilated patients requiring fluid challenge.
A 6 ml/kg colloid fluid challenge in 30 min.
Hemodynamic measurements taken before and after fluid challenge. Patients separated into responders and nonresponders according to a 15% increase in their cardiac output. Thirty-nine patients found to be responders and 45 nonresponders. DeltaPP/DeltaP and DeltaPP were both higher in responders than in nonresponders. DeltaPP/DeltaP was a better predictor of fluid responsiveness than PP, especially for patients ventilated with Vt > or = 8 ml/kg [area under the curve (AUC) 0.88 (0.77-0.98) versus 0.75 (0.60-0.89), P < 0.01)]. In this population DeltaPP/DeltaP higher than 0.9 predicted fluid response with positive predictive value of 87% and negative predictive value of 78%. Overall DeltaPP and DeltaPP/DeltaP reliability was poor for patients ventilated with Vt < 8 ml/kg [AUC 0.63 (0.45-0.81) and 0.72 (0.55-0.88), respectively].
In this mixed ICU population PP adjusted by P is a simple index which outperforms DeltaPP for patients ventilated with Vt > or = 8 ml/kg. However, correcting DeltaPP by DeltaP still fails to predict fluid response reliably in patients ventilated with low tidal volume.
评估经肺泡压变化校正的脉压变异度(DeltaPP/DeltaP,DeltaP = 平台压 - 总呼气末正压,DeltaPP为脉压变异度)预测液体反应性的能力,将其准确性与单独使用的DeltaPP进行比较,并评估潮气量(Vt)对这两个指标的影响。
前瞻性研究。
一个有22张床位的综合重症监护病房(ICU)。
84例需要进行液体负荷试验的外科或内科机械通气患者。
在30分钟内给予6 ml/kg的胶体液进行液体负荷试验。
在液体负荷试验前后进行血流动力学测量。根据心输出量增加15%将患者分为反应者和无反应者。39例患者为反应者,45例为无反应者。反应者的DeltaPP/DeltaP和DeltaPP均高于无反应者。DeltaPP/DeltaP比脉压(PP)能更好地预测液体反应性,尤其是对于Vt≥8 ml/kg通气的患者[曲线下面积(AUC)为0.88(0.77 - 0.98),而PP为0.75(0.60 - 0.89),P < 0.01]。在该人群中,DeltaPP/DeltaP高于0.9可预测液体反应,阳性预测值为87%,阴性预测值为78%。总体而言,对于Vt < 8 ml/kg通气的患者,DeltaPP和DeltaPP/DeltaP的可靠性较差[AUC分别为0.63(0.45 - 0.81)和0.72(0.55 - 0.88)]。
在这个混合的ICU人群中,经平台压校正的脉压是一个简单的指标,对于Vt≥8 ml/kg通气的患者,其表现优于DeltaPP。然而,用DeltaP校正DeltaPP仍不能可靠地预测低潮气量通气患者的液体反应。