Service de Réanimation Polyvalente, Centre Hospitalier de Narbonne, Bd Dr Lacroix, 11100, Narbonne, France.
Réanimation URM, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, CHU Purpan, Place du Dr Baylac, 31059, Toulouse Cedex 9, France.
J Clin Monit Comput. 2022 Oct;36(5):1479-1487. doi: 10.1007/s10877-021-00789-8. Epub 2021 Dec 5.
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.
脉压变异度(PPV)预测采用压力控制(PC)而非容量控制模式下液体反应性的准确性存在争议。为了专门解决这个问题,我们设计了一项研究,以评估在接受双相气道正压通气(BIPAP)PC 通气模式机械通气的严重脓毒症患者中,PPV 预测液体反应性的准确性。纳入了 45 例接受 BIPAP 模式机械通气且目标潮气量为 7-8 ml/kg 的脓毒症或脓毒性休克患者。在基线和标准液体冲击(林格氏乳酸盐 500 ml)后自动评估 PPV。SV 增加 15%定义为液体反应性。通过接受者操作特征(ROC)曲线分析和“灰色区域”统计方法评估 PPV 的预测价值。20 例(44%)患者被认为是液体反应者。我们发现,容量扩张后 PPV 下降与 SV 增加之间存在显著关系(斯皮尔曼 ρ=-0.5,p<0.001)。PPV 的 ROC 曲线下面积为 0.71(95%CI 0.56-0.87,p=0.007)。最佳截断值(基于约登指数)为 8%,敏感性为 80%,特异性为 60%。使用灰色区域方法,我们发现 PPV 值在 5%至 15%之间不能可靠地预测液体反应性。在接受 BIPAP 模式通气的危重症脓毒症患者中,PPV 似乎是一种预测液体反应性的准确方法。然而,PPV 值在 5%至 15%之间构成一个灰色区域,不能可靠地预测液体反应性。