Abstract:Objective: To approach the evaluative effect of respiratory variation of superior vena cava peak flow velocity measured using transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) on fluid responsiveness in patients with mechanical ventilation. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted. All mechanical ventilated critically ill patients whose fluid therapy was planned due to hypovolemia in Department of Critical Care Medicine of Beijing Tongren Hospital of Capital Medical University from April 2011 to April 2013 were enrolled. Volume expansion was performed with 500 mL Linger solution within 30 minutes. Patients were classified as responders if pulse pressure variation (PPV) increased ≥ 13% before volume expansion. The respiratory variation in superior vena cava peak velocity was calculated as the difference between maximum and minimum values of velocity in peak A, peak S and peak D over a single respiratory circle, and their variations (ΔA, ΔS, ΔD) were also calculated. The receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC curve) was plotted to assess the evaluative effect of respiratory variation of superior vena cava peak velocity on fluid responsiveness. Results: Twenty-seven patients were enrolled in this study. Volume expansion increased PPV ≥ 13% happened in 14 patients (responders). The velocity of superior vena cava in peak A, peak S, peak D was significantly increased after volume expansion compared with that before volume expansion in responders [peak A (cm/s): 34.6 ± 2.2 vs. 31.3 ± 2.1, t=-2.493, P=0.027; peak S (cm/s): 39.1 ± 1.3 vs. 35.3 ± 2.1, t=-2.564, P=0.024; peak D (cm/s): 28.1 ± 1.2 vs. 23.3 ± 1.4, t=-4.995, P=0.000], but there was no significant difference in ΔA, ΔS and ΔD between before and after volume expansion. The ΔA, ΔS and ΔD were positively correlated with PPV (r=0.040, P=0.854; r=0.350, P=0.074; r=0.749, P=0.000). The area under ROC curve (AUC) of peak S was 0.36 [95% confidence interval (95%CI): 0.11-0.52], but the AUC of ΔS was 0.68 (95%CI 0.47-0.89), the AUC of peak D was 0.41 (95%CI 0.19-0.63), but the AUC of ΔD was 0.95 (95%CI 0.86-1.00), so the aberration rate of superior vena cava in respiration was better than the flow rate in superior vena cava. When the cut-off value of ΔS was 20.7% for predicting fluid responsiveness, the sensitivity was 78.6% and the specificity was 61.5%. When the cut-off value of ΔD was 12.7% for predicting fluid responsiveness, the sensitivity was 92.0% and the specificity was 92.3%. Conclusions: Respiratory variations in superior vena cava peak velocity measured by TTE could assess fluid responsiveness in patients with mechanical ventilation.

Pulse-wave transit time with ventilator-induced variation for the prediction of fluid responsiveness

Comparison of pulse pressure variation versus echocardiography-derived stroke volume variation for prediction of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated anesthetized dogs

Ability of Carotid Corrected Flow Time to Predict Fluid Responsiveness in Patients Mechanically Ventilated Using Low Tidal Volume after Surgery

Accuracy of pulse pressure variations for fluid responsiveness prediction in mechanically ventilated patients with biphasic positive airway pressure mode

The effects of respiratory rate and tidal volume on pulse pressure variation in healthy lungs-a generalized additive model approach may help overcome limitations

Respiratory Variability of Pulmonary Velocity-Time Integral As a New Gauge of Fluid Responsiveness For Mechanically Ventilated Patients in the ICU

Effect of VTILVOT variation rate on the assessment of fluid responsiveness in septic shock patients

Comparative evaluation of stroke volume variation measured by pulse wave transit time and arterial pressure wave

Assessment of fluid responsiveness after tidal volume challenge in renal transplant recipients: a nonrandomized prospective interventional study

Testing preload responsiveness by the tidal volume challenge assessed by the photoplethysmographic perfusion index

Does Tidal Volume Challenge Improve the Feasibility of Pulse Pressure Variation in Patients Mechanically Ventilated at Low Tidal Volumes? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Pressure- vs. volume-controlled ventilation and their respective impact on dynamic parameters of fluid responsiveness: a cross-over animal study

Change in Left Ventricular Velocity Time Integral During Trendelenburg Maneuver Predicts Fluid Responsiveness in Cardiac Surgical Patients in the Operating Room

Effect of tidal volume change on pressure-based prediction of fluid responsiveness in children

Tidal Volume Challenge-Induced Hemodynamic Changes Can Predict Fluid Responsiveness During One-Lung Ventilation: an Observational Study.

Validity of stroke volume variation for predicting fluid responsiveness in different grades of intra-abdominal pressure

CAROTID ARTERY ULTRASOUND FOR ASSESSING FLUID RESPONSIVENESS IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING MECHANICAL VENTILATION WITH LOW TIDAL VOLUME AND PRESERVED SPONTANEOUS BREATHING

[The assessment of ultrasonic measurement of superior vena cava blood flow for the volume responsiveness of patients with mechanical ventilation]

Accuracy of stroke volume variation in predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison Between Changes in Systolic-Pressure Variation and Pulse-Pressure Variation After Passive Leg Raising to Predict Fluid Responsiveness in Postoperative Critically Ill Patients

Comparing Changes in Carotid Flow Time and Stroke Volume Induced by Passive Leg Raising