Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Critical Care 6/2014

Open Access 01.12.2014 | Research

Does pulse pressure variation predict fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis

verfasst von: Xiaobo Yang, Bin Du

Erschienen in: Critical Care | Ausgabe 6/2014

Abstract

Introduction

Fluid resuscitation is crucial in managing hemodynamically unstable patients. The last decade witnessed the use of pulse pressure variation (PPV) to predict fluid responsiveness. However, as far as we know, no systematic review and meta-analysis has been carried out to evaluate the value of PPV in predicting fluid responsiveness specifically upon patients admitted into intensive care units.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE and included clinical trials that evaluated the association between PPV and fluid responsiveness after fluid challenge in mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units. Data were synthesized using an exact binomial rendition of the bivariate mixed-effects regression model modified for synthesis of diagnostic test data.

Result

Twenty-two studies with 807 mechanically ventilated patients with tidal volume more than 8 ml/kg and without spontaneous breathing and cardiac arrhythmia were included, and 465 were responders (58%). The pooled sensitivity was 0.88 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.92) and pooled specificity was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.92). A summary receiver operating characteristic curve yielded an area under the curve of 0.94 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.95). A significant threshold effect was identified.

Conclusions

PPV predicts fluid responsiveness accurately in mechanically ventilated patients with relative large tidal volume and without spontaneous breathing and cardiac arrhythmia.
Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1186/​s13054-014-0650-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

XY planned, performed the literature review and meta-analysis, and wrote the manuscript. BD planned, performed the literature review and meta-analysis, and wrote the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Abkürzungen
AUC
area under the curve
CI
confidence interval
HES
hydroxyethyl starch
PPV
pulse pressure variation
QUADAS
Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy included in Systematic Reviews
SROC
summary receiver operating characteristic
SVV
stroke volume variation

Introduction

Despite the fact that fluid resuscitation is considered the first line of therapy in hemodynamically unstable patients [1], a large body of evidence indicates that unnecessary positive fluid balance is associated with increased morbidity and mortality [2]-[4]. Moreover, conflicting results have been reported with regards to studies investigating goal-directed hemodynamic therapy in critically ill patients, such as Rivers and colleagues’ study and the OPTIMISE study [5],[6]. No matter what the study result is, the first step in hemodynamic therapy in all of the above studies is always preload optimization. However, only about one-half of the critically ill patients exhibit a positive response to fluid challenge [7], and accurate prediction of fluid responsiveness remains one of the most difficult tasks at the bedside in the ICU.
Medical history, clinical manifestations (such as skin turgor, blood pressure, pulse rate, and urine output), and routine laboratory tests are important but of limited sensitivity and specificity [7],[8]. Static measures, including central venous pressure, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, right ventricular end-diastolic volume, left ventricular end-diastolic area, inferior vena-caval diameter, and global end-diastolic volume index, are of poor value in guiding fluid resuscitation [1],[7],[9].
Over the last decade, a number of studies have been reported, which have used heart–lung interactions during mechanical ventilation to assess fluid responsiveness. Among these functional hemodynamic parameters, pulse pressure variation (PPV) – which can easily and accurately obtained by online assessment of the arterial waveform with a standard multiparametric monitor [10] – has been shown to be highly predictive of fluid responsiveness in a systematic review, with sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio of 0.89, 0.88, and 59.86, respectively [11]. Nevertheless, seven out of the 29 studies included in the systematic review were performed in operating rooms rather than ICUs. In addition, more studies have been published since. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the accuracy of PPV in predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients.

Materials and methods

Study selection and inclusion criteria

All relevant clinical trials investigating the ability of PPV to predict fluid responsiveness in adult patients in the ICU were considered for inclusion. Only studies published as full-text articles in an indexed journal were included. Reviews, case reports, and studies published in abstract form were excluded. No language restriction was applied. No ethical approval and patient consent are required.
We included those studies in which the predictive value had been assessed by calculating both sensitivity and specificity in identifying those patients who subsequently responded to fluid challenge. We excluded studies employing a ventilatory strategy that maintained spontaneous breathing or generated a tidal volume <8 ml/kg. However, those studies without clear statement concerning the presence or absence of spontaneous breathing and tidal volume were included in the final analysis.

Search strategy and data extraction

Two authors independently performed a search in MEDLINE and EMBASE published from inception to 7 May 2014. If discrepancy existed between the two authors, it was resolved by discussion. An advanced search from the EMBASE website was used [12], with key words of pulse pressure (explode) and fluid responsiveness or fluid challenge or fluid resuscitation (explode). In addition to the electronic search, we checked out cross-references from original articles and reviews.
The two authors independently performed the initial selection by screening titles and abstracts. Citations were selected for further evaluation if the studies they referred to were studies investigating the predictive value of PPV in ICU adult patients. For detailed evaluation, we obtained peer-reviewed full texts of all possibly relevant studies. Data from each study were extracted independently using a standardized form, which included first author, year of publication, sample size, study setting, patient population, primary diagnosis, tidal volume, absence of spontaneous breathing or arrhythmia, type and amount of fluid infused, duration of fluid challenge, definition of responders, instrument(s) used for measuring index, and cardiac output. We also collected data about the method used to measure PPV as well as the threshold of PPV to achieve corresponding sensitivity and specificity. True positive, false positive, false negative, and true negative values were calculated to construct the 2 × 2 contingency table.
When two methods were compared, only the data of the reference method for measuring PPV were included. If data provided in the original study were inadequate to generate the contingency table, we sent two emails, at a 1-week interval, to the corresponding author for clarification. If the author failed to respond to our emails, we excluded the study from the final analysis.

Quality assessment

Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy included in Systematic Reviews (QUADAS-2) checklist [13], an improved, redesigned tool based both on experience using the original tool [14] and new evidence about sources of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. QUADAS-2 comprised four domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain was assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first three domains were also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Each domain was scored as ‘yes’, ‘yes’, or ‘unclear’. We did not calculate summary scores because their interpretation was problematic and potentially misleading [15].

Statistical analysis

Data were synthesized using an exact binomial rendition of the bivariate mixed-effects regression model modified for synthesis of diagnostic test data [16]-[18]. Theoretically, bivariate models are motivated and allow estimation of the correlation of sensitivity and specificity, because, unlike univariate analyses, bivariate models do not transform pairs of sensitivity and specificity into single indicators as diagnostic accuracy [19]. The overall pooling of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio was calculated using a random-effects model. Weighted summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) analysis was implemented. The area under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Bayes nomogram was also constructed to show the diagnostic accuracy of PPV in prediction of fluid responsiveness.
Heterogeneity across studies was assessed using the chi-square test and the Cochran Q statistic was calculated. The effect of heterogeneity was quantified using inconsistency (I 2), which described the percentage of total variation attributed to heterogeneity rather than chance. I 2 > 50% would mean significant heterogeneity [20]. A Galbraith plot was used to identify outliers. After removal of outliers, heterogeneity test was performed as mentioned before and AUC was also recalculated.
If significant heterogeneity was recorded, the proportion probably due to the threshold effect was evaluated using the Moses–Shapiro–Littenberg method [21]. Another potential source of heterogeneity was investigated by meta-regression analysis if heterogeneity among studies could not be fully explained by the threshold effect. Publication bias was investigated using Deeks’ funnel plot asymmetry test and the P value for the slope coefficient was reported [22].
A subgroup analysis was carried out on different types of fluid that were used to assess fluid responsiveness. For studies reporting both the predictive value of PPV and stroke volume variation (SVV), the SROC AUC was calculated for both parameters.
Data were analyzed using STATA version 13.0 (Stata Corp LP, College Station, TX, USA) with the MIDAS module. Most data are expressed as value (95% CI). P <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The process of the study search and inclusion is summarized in Figure 1. The 22 studies included in the final meta-analysis enrolled a total of 807 patients, with an average of 37 patients per study [23]-[44].
Characteristics of the 22 included studies are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. A total of 465 patients (58%) were responders to fluid challenge, ranging from 29 to 84% among 22 studies. Ten studies were performed in patients after cardiac surgery (n = 8) or other surgery (n = 2), while other studies were conducted in a mixed population of critically ill patients. Data on tidal volume, spontaneous breathing, and body weight were not available in some studies (Table 2). Most studies did not report the respiratory rate (Table 2). All of the included studies excluded patients with cardiac arrhythmia. With regards to fluid challenge, 6% hydroxyethyl starch (HES) was most commonly used (n = 13), followed by crystalloids (n = 6), other colloids (n = 2), and blood (n = 1). A volume ranging from 100 ml to 20 ml/kg body weight was infused within 1 minute up to 90 minutes. Cardiac output was monitored by means of PiCCO technology (n = 7), pulmonary artery catheter (n = 6), transesophageal/transthoracic echocardiography or Doppler measurements (n = 5), and other methods (n = 4). All studies except for two [24],[26] defined responders as patients whose stroke volume or cardiac output was increased by ≥15%.
Table 1
Selected spectrum characteristics of included studies
Order
Authors
Year
Sample size
Setting
Admission
Diagnosis
1
Michard and colleagues [23]
2000
40
ICU
Medical
Sepsis/septic shock
2
Kramer and colleagues [24]
2004
21
SICU
Surgical
Cardiac surgery
3
Feissel and colleagues [25]
2005
20a
ICU
Medical
Sepsis/septic shock
4
Charron and colleagues [26]
2006
21
ICU
NA
NA
5
Monnet and colleagues [27]
2006
30
MICU
Medical
Shock
6
Feissel and colleagues [28]
2007
23b
MICU
Medical
Sepsis/septic shock
7
Wyffels and colleagues [29]
2007
32
ICU
Surgical
Cardiac surgery
8
Auler and colleagues [30]
2008
59
SICU
Surgical
Cardiac surgery
9
Monge Garcia and colleagues [31]
2009
38
ICU
NA
Shock
10
Vistisen and colleagues [32]
2009
23
SICU
Surgical
Cardiac surgery
11
Loupec and colleagues [33]
2011
40
SICU
Surgical and medical
Surgery and septic shock
12
Biais and colleagues [34]
2012
35
SICU
Surgical and medical
Vascular surgery, trauma, septic shock
13
Cecconi and colleagues [35]
2012
31
ICU
Surgical
High-risk surgery
14
Fellahi and colleagues [36]
2012
25
SICU
Surgical
Cardiac surgery
15
Khwannimit and colleagues [37]
2012
42
MICU
Medical
Sepsis/septic shock
16
Monnet and colleagues [38]
2012
26
MICU
Medical
Shock
17
Monnet and colleagues [39]
2012
39
MICU
Medical
Shock
18
Yazigi and colleagues [40]
2012
60
SICU
Surgical
Cardiac surgery
19
Fischer and colleagues [41]
2013
37
SICU
Surgical
Cardiac surgery
20
Fischer and colleagues [42]
2013
80
SICU
Surgical
Cardiac surgery
21
Ishihara and colleagues [43]
2013
43
ICU
Surgical
Noncardiac surgery
22
Monnet and colleagues [44]
2013
35
MICU
Medical
Shock
MICU, medical intensive care unit; NA, not available; SICU, surgical intensive care unit. aTwenty-two fluid challenges included. bTwenty-eight fluid challenges included.
Table 2
Selected methodological characteristics of included studies
Order
Authors
Year
Vt (ml/kg)
Body weight
Spontaneous breathing
Respiratory rate (times/minute)
Cardiac arrhythmia
Infusion fluid
Infusion volume
Infusion time (minutes)
Indices
Method for indices
Cutoff value (%)
1
Michard and colleagues [23]
2000
8 to 12
NA
No
NA
No
6% HES
500 ml
30
CI
PAC
15
2
Kramer and colleagues [24]
2004
8 to 10
NA
No
NA
No
Blood
500 ml
10 to 15
CO
PAC
12
3
Feissel and colleagues [25]
2005
8 to 10
NA
No
NA
No
6% HES
7 ml/kg
30
CI
Echo
15
4
Charron and colleagues [26]
2006
6 to 10
NA
No
14 to 20
No
6% HES
100 ml
1
SV
Echo
15
5
Monnet and colleagues [27]
2006
NA
NA
No
23 ± 5
No
Saline
500 ml
10
Aortic blood flow
Esophageal Doppler
15
6
Feissel and colleagues [28]
2007
8 to 10
NA
No
NA
No
6% HES
8 ml/kg
30
CI
Echo
15
7
Wyffels and colleagues [29]
2007
8 to 10
NA
No
NA
No
6% HES
500 ml
20
CO
PAC
15
8
Auler and colleagues [30]
2008
8
NA
No
NA
No
LR
20 ml/kg
20
CI
PAC
15
9
Monge Garcia and colleagues [31]
2009
9
Ideal
No
18 to 20
No
6% HES
500 ml
30
SV
FloTrac
15
10
Vistisen and colleagues [32]
2009
8.1a
Predicted
NA
14
No
6% HES
500 ml
45
CI
PAC
15
11
Loupec and colleagues [33]
2011
8 to 10
Predicted
No
NA
No
6% HESb
500 ml
10
CO
Echo
15
12
Biais and colleagues [34]
2012
8 to 10
Predicted
No
16 ± 3c
No
Saline
500 ml
15
SV
Echo
15
13
Cecconi and colleagues [35]
2012
8
Ideal
No
14
No
Colloid
250 ml
5
CO
LiDCO plus
15
14
Fellahi and colleagues [36]
2012
NA
NA
NA
12 ± 2
No
6% HES
500 ml
15
CI
PiCCO2
15
15
Khwannimit and colleagues [37]
2012
≥ 8
NA
No
NA
No
6% HES
500 ml
30
SV
FloTrac
15
16
Monnet and colleagues [38]
2012
8.8d
Predicted
No
NA
No
Saline
500 ml
20
CI
PiCCO2
15
17
Monnet and colleagues [39]
2012
8.5e
Predicted
No
NA
No
Saline
500 ml
30
CI
PiCCO2
15
18
Yazigi and colleagues [40]
2012
8
NA
No
12
No
6% HES
7 ml/kg
20
SV
PAC
15
19
Fischer and colleagues [41]
2013
8.6
NA
NA
NAf
No
6% HES
500 ml
15
CI
PiCCO2
15
20
Fischer and colleagues [42]
2013
8.2
NA
No
NAc
No
6% HES
500 ml
15
CI
PiCCO2
15
21
Ishihara and colleagues [43]
2013
≥ 8
Ideal
No
12 to 15
No
10% dextran
250 ml
20
CI
PiCCO
15
22
Monnet and colleagues [44]
2013
9
Predicted
No
NA
No
Saline
500 ml
30
CI
PiCCO2
15
CI, cardiac index; CO, cardiac output; Echo, echocardiography; HES, hydroxyethyl starch; LR, Ringer’s lactate; NA, not available; PAC, pulmonary artery catheter; SV, stroke volume; Vt, tidal volume. aMean Vt of 6.9 ml/kg actual body weight. bSome patients evaluated with passive leg raising test. cHeart rate/respiratory rate >3.6. dOnly mean Vt >8 ml/kg included. eMean Vt of 7.4 ml/kg for nonresponder. fHeart rate/respiratory rate = 5.7.
Overall, the methodological quality was moderate (Additional file 1). Specifically, five out of 22 included studies reported enrollment of consecutive patients, and four studies reported no test review bias; that is, interpretation of the reference standard results without knowledge of the result of the index test, and vice versa.
The results for the diagnostic performance of the included studies and the method used to measure PPV are presented in Table 3. The median threshold of PPV in predicting fluid responsiveness was 12% (interquartile range 10 to 13%).
Table 3
Diagnostic performance of pulse pressure variation from included studies
Order
Authors
Year
Threshold a(%)
tp
fp
fn
tn
Sens. (%)
Spec. (%)
Method used to measure PPV
1
Michard and colleagues [23]
2000
13
15
1
1
23
94
96
Waveform analysis with computer software
2
Kramer and colleagues [24]
2004
11
6
1
0
14
100
93
Waveform analysis with computer software
3
Feissel and colleagues [25]
2005
17
11
0
2
9
85
100
Waveform analysis with computer software
4
Charron and colleagues [26]
2006
10
8
2
1
10
89
83
Waveform analysis with computer software
5
Monnet and colleagues [27]
2006
12
14
1
2
13
88
93
Waveform analysis with computer software
6
Feissel and colleagues [28]
2007
12
18
1
0
9
100
94
Waveform analysis with computer software
7
Wyffels and colleagues [29]
2007
11.3
19
1
1
11
95
92
Analysis of printout curves
8
Auler and colleagues [30]
2008
12
38
1
1
19
97
95
Waveform analysis with computer software
9
Monge Garcia and colleagues [31]
2009
10
18
1
1
18
95
95
Waveform analysis with computer software
10
Vistisen and colleagues [32]
2009
6.5
16
1
1
5
94
83
Waveform analysis with computer software
11
Loupec and colleagues [33]
2011
13
19
2
2
17
90
89
Waveform analysis with computer software
12
Biais and colleagues [34]
2012
10
17
2
2
14
89
88
Waveform analysis with computer software
13
Cecconi and colleagues [35]
2012
13
10
5
2
14
83
74
Waveform analysis with LiDCO
14
Fellahi and colleagues [36]
2012
10
17
1
4
3
81
75
Waveform analysis with PiCCO
15
Khwannimit and colleagues [37]
2012
12
20
3
4
15
83
83
Direct analysis of monitored arterial tracing
16
Monnet and colleagues [38]
2012
12
13
0
2
11
85
100
Waveform analysis with PiCCO
17
Monnet and colleagues [39]
2012
10
15
2
2
20
88
91
Waveform analysis with PiCCO
18
Yazigi and colleagues [40]
2012
11.5
33
5
8
14
80
74
Direct analysis of monitored arterial tracing
19
Fischer and colleagues [41]
2013
16
12
0
15
10
44
100
Waveform analysis with PiCCO
20
Fischer and colleagues [42]
2013
14
36
5
21
18
64
78
Waveform analysis with PiCCO
21
Ishihara and colleagues [43]
2013
8.5
11
6
12
14
50
71
Waveform analysis with PiCCO
22
Monnet and colleagues [44]
2013
15
14
1
1
19
93
95
Waveform analysis with PiCCO
fn, false negative; fp, false positive; PPV, pulse pressure variation; sens., sensitivity; spec., specificity; tn, true negative; tp, true positive. aThreshold used in studies to achieve corresponding sensitivity and specificity.
Pooled sensitivity was 0.88 (95% CI = 0.81 to 0.92) and pooled specificity was 0.89 (95% CI = 0.84 to 0.92) (Figure 2). PPV had an overall positive likelihood ratio of 7.7 (95% CI = 5.3 to 11.3), a negative likelihood ratio of 0.14 (95% CI = 0.08 to 0.23), and a diagnostic odds ratio of 56 (95% CI = 26 to 122). The SROC AUC was 0.94 (95% CI = 0.91 to 0.95) (Figure 3).
Moderate heterogeneity existed among the studies, with Cochran Q statistic of 4.681 (P = 0.042) and overall I 2 for bivariate model of 60% (95% CI = 9 to 100). All of the heterogeneity (100%) was caused by the threshold effect. As a result, meta-regression analysis with the objective to explore the effects of potential covariates on the diagnostic performance of PPV was not performed. Four outliers were identified by means of a Galbraith plot (Figure 4) [30],[41]-[43]. Heterogeneity became nonsignificant (Cochrane Q statistic = 0.146, P = 0.465) after removal of these four outliers, while the SROC AUC slightly improved (0.95, 95% CI = 0.93 to 0.97).
We did not identify publication bias by Deeks' regression test of asymmetry; a statistically nonsignificant P value of 0.41 for the slope coefficient suggested symmetry in the data and a low likelihood of publication bias (Figure 5). Bayes nomogram showed moderate fine likelihood ratios and post-test probabilities (Figure 6).
For studies using HES or saline to assess fluid responsiveness, the SROC AUC of PPV was 0.92 (95% CI = 0.89 to 0.94) and 0.96 (95% CI = 0.94 to 0.98), respectively. Nine studies reported the predictive value of both PPV and SVV, and both SROC AUCs were 0.90 (95% CI = 0.87 to 0.93) (Additional file 2).

Discussion

The major finding of this systematic review and meta-analysis is that PPV during controlled mechanical ventilation with tidal volume >8 ml/kg is an accurate predictor of fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients, with sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI = 0.81 to 0.92), specificity of 0.89 (95% CI = 0.84 to 0.92), and SROC AUC of 0.94 (95% CI = 0.91 to 0.95).
In a meta-analysis of the literature to determine the ability of PPV, systolic pressure variation, and SVV to predict fluid responsiveness, Marik and colleagues included 29 studies enrolling a total of 685 patients and reported the pooled ROC AUC for PPV as 0.94 (95% CI = 0.93 to 0.95) [11], which is in accordance with our findings. Very recently, Hong and colleagues published another meta-analysis involving 865 mechanically ventilated patients from 19 studies, to evaluate the value of both SVV and PPV in predicting fluid responsiveness [45]. These authors reported a significantly lower pooled ROC AUC for PPV (0.88, 95% CI = 0.84 to 0.92). However, there are several major differences between these two meta-analyses and our study. First, most of the included studies in the above two meta-analyses (12 out of 18 studies [11] and 12 out of 19 studies [45], respectively) were conducted in perioperative settings (that is, before or after induction of anesthesia) or during surgery. In contrast, we limited our meta-analysis to those studies in critically ill patients in the ICU. Perioperative patients differ from critically ill patients in the ICU with regards to age, comorbidities, severity of illness, complications, and clinical outcome. Moreover, the predictive ability of PPV might be compromised in open chest conditions, due to inaccurate reflection of phasic changes in preload (and hence stroke volume), increased aortic impedance (and subsequent changes in the relationship between stroke volume and pulse pressure), as well as less pronounced cyclic changes in intrathoracic pressure [41],[46]. Second, we adopted very strict inclusion and exclusion criteria in our meta-analysis. We excluded studies with a tidal volume <8 ml/kg. But one study [47] from Marik and colleagues’ review and one study [48] from Hong and colleagues’ review included tidal volume <7 ml/kg. We excluded two studies [49],[50] included by Marik and colleagues because they reported PPV in fewer than 10 patients so that the 2 × 2 contingency table could not be generated. In addition, two studies with contradicting information without clarification from the authors were also excluded [51],[52]. Third, Marik and colleagues did not find any heterogeneity using the Cochran Q statistic. Despite the fact that two parameters were meta-analyzed with only one Cochran’s Q statistic reported, Hong and colleagues considered between-study heterogeneity low enough to consider the study population as statistically homogeneous for applying appropriate AUC statistics. We reported borderline heterogeneity in our studies. Possible reasons might include the different studies involved in the meta-analysis (as mentioned above) as well as different statistical models used. We found that the heterogeneity observed in our meta-analysis could be fully explained by the threshold effect, which had not been investigated in the previous meta-analyses. The threshold effect is one of main causes of heterogeneity in test accuracy studies. It arises owing to different thresholds or cutoff values used in different studies to determine a positive (or negative) test result. The median threshold level for PPV to predict fluid responsiveness in our meta-analysis was 12% (interquartile range 10 to 13%) with a sensitivity of 0.88 and a specificity of 0.89. The bottom line is that we believe it would be reasonable to postulate that PPV >13% implied fluid responsiveness, while PPV <10% indicated fluid unresponsiveness.
To explore other potential sources of heterogeneity, we focused on the studies with the lowest sensitivity value and Youden index (sensitivity + specificity −1) (Figure 3). These were also three of the four studies identified using a Galbraith plot (Figure 4). Two of the studies were carried out similarly by the same first author [41],[42]. In the study with larger sample size, Fischer and colleagues found that one-third of the patients had right ventricular dysfunction and 34% of ICU patients with PPV >12% were fluid unresponsive [42]. Wyler von Ballmoos and colleagues supported that right ventricular dysfunction led to poor response to fluids in patients with increased pulmonary artery pressure [53]. Similar to Fischer and colleagues’ study, Biais and colleagues evaluated right ventricular function using echocardiography and excluded patients with right ventricular dysfunction from their study [34]. Ishihara and colleagues examined the predictive value of PPV in patients after open-chest abdominothoracic esophagectomy with extensive resection of lymph nodes [43]. They postulated that extensive alteration of thoracic structure might change the cyclic variation of intrathoracic pressure, leading to a modified heart–lung interaction. Postoperative left pleural effusion was common in their patients. Right ventricular dysfunction and extensive alteration of thoracic structure will limit the use of PPV to predict fluid responsiveness.
In the OPTIMISE study, patients in the cardiac output-guided hemodynamic therapy algorithm group were given fluid challenges to reach maximal stroke volume, but no difference of a composite outcome of complications or 30-day mortality was found between the trial group and the usual care group in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery [6]. The POEMAS Study found similar results [54]. However, fluid responsiveness does not necessarily mean that the patients require fluid resuscitation, as long as there are no signs of tissue hypoperfusion [55]. The cardiac functions of critically ill patients and their disease status are dynamic, while the adequacy of tissue perfusion should be the focus [56].
Our study is subject to some limitations. First, sample sizes of the included studies were small. However, even under this condition a meta-analysis still provides valuable information on the diagnostic accuracy until proven otherwise by larger or better-conducted studies [57]. Second, different instruments (pulmonary artery catheter, echocardiography, PiCCO, and so forth) and indices (cardiac output/index, stroke volume, and so forth) were used to evaluate fluid responsiveness, and different methods were used to measure PPV. Nonetheless, this reflects the real situation in a contemporary ICU. It is also convenient to evaluate PPV by directly analyzing monitored arterial tracing or printout curves [29],[37],[40], which means PPV can be evaluated repeatedly and regularly, and with computer software and waveform analysis can be monitored continuously. This is attractive to intensivists who have to titrate fluid resuscitation in mechanically ventilated patients almost every day. Nevertheless, it is important that elimination or minimization of fluid responsiveness, including PPV, should never be the only goal of fluid therapy. Third, we excluded studies in which patients were ventilated using low tidal volumes, which is the commonly accepted ventilation strategy in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Because most studies showed that although better than conventional static parameters, PPV had limited value in predicting fluid responsiveness in these patients [52],[58]-[64]. This was probably because, with low tidal volume ventilation, the cyclic changes in intrathoracic pressures were not significant enough to induce preload variations [58]. Huang and colleagues and Freitas and colleagues, however, found that PPV accurately predicted fluid responsiveness in patients ventilated with a tidal volume of 6 ml/kg [65],[66]. They attributed the discrepancy to higher positive end-expiratory pressure levels, which enhanced the cyclic changes in pleural pressures. More trials concerning the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure on PPV are needed in the future. Before more data are presented, a temporary change of ventilator parameters maybe used to evaluate PPV at a larger tidal volume, as demonstrated by Freitas and colleagues [66]. Fourth, more than one-half of the included studies used HES. Nowadays, however, fewer patients receive HES with consideration of its detrimental effect on the kidney, as in the OPTIMISE study [6]. However, we performed a subgroup analysis and found that the SROC AUC of PPV was 0.92 (95% CI = 0.89 to 0.94) for studies using HES and 0.96 (95% CI = 0.94 to 0.98) for studies using saline, suggesting that the choice of fluid does not influence the predictive value of PPV. Fifth, ICU patients are often with conditions precluding the use of PPV. In their 1-day prospective observational study, Mahjoub and colleagues found that only 15 out of 79 (19%) patients used PPV to measure fluid responsiveness [67]. However, as advocated by Teboul and Monnet, other fluid responsiveness tests, such as passive leg raising test or end-expiratory occlusion test, could be used when PPV was not available [68]. Measurement of SVV is also influenced, as that of PPV, by the presence of cardiac arrhythmia or spontaneous breathing, as well as low tidal volume ventilation, while it requires much more complicated devices than PPV. Two meta-analyses suggested that both SVV and PPV are accurate predictors of fluid responsiveness in hemodynamically unstable patients under controlled mechanical ventilation [11],[45]. With studies reporting both PPV and SVV included in our meta-analysis, we found similar results. Sixth, only Biais and colleagues and Fischer and colleagues evaluated right ventricular function using echocardiography, and only Biais and colleagues excluded patients with right ventricular dysfunction from their study [34],[42].

Conclusions

PPV is an accurate predictor of fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients passively ventilated with tidal volume >8 ml/kg and without cardiac arrhythmia.

Key messages

  • A significant threshold effect existed while using PPV to determine a responder (or nonresponder) to volume expansion.
  • PPV is an accurate predictor of fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients ventilated with relative large tidal volume and without spontaneous breathing and cardiac arrhythmia.

Additional files

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

XY planned, performed the literature review and meta-analysis, and wrote the manuscript. BD planned, performed the literature review and meta-analysis, and wrote the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Marik PE, Monnet X, Teboul JL: Hemodynamic parameters to guide fluid therapy. Ann Intensive Care. 2011, 1: 1-10.1186/2110-5820-1-1.CrossRef Marik PE, Monnet X, Teboul JL: Hemodynamic parameters to guide fluid therapy. Ann Intensive Care. 2011, 1: 1-10.1186/2110-5820-1-1.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Sakr Y, Vincent JL, Reinhart K, Groeneveld J, Michalopoulos A, Sprung CL, Artigas A, Ranieri VM: High tidal volume and positive fluid balance are associated with worse outcome in acute lung injury. Chest. 2005, 128: 3098-3108. 10.1378/chest.128.5.3098.CrossRef Sakr Y, Vincent JL, Reinhart K, Groeneveld J, Michalopoulos A, Sprung CL, Artigas A, Ranieri VM: High tidal volume and positive fluid balance are associated with worse outcome in acute lung injury. Chest. 2005, 128: 3098-3108. 10.1378/chest.128.5.3098.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Comparison of two fluid-management strategies in acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2006, 354: 2564-2575. 10.1056/NEJMoa062200. Comparison of two fluid-management strategies in acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2006, 354: 2564-2575. 10.1056/NEJMoa062200.
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Murphy CV, Schramm GE, Doherty JA, Reichley RM, Gajic O, Afessa B, Micek ST, Kollef MH: The importance of fluid management in acute lung injury secondary to septic shock. Chest. 2009, 136: 102-109. 10.1378/chest.08-2706.CrossRef Murphy CV, Schramm GE, Doherty JA, Reichley RM, Gajic O, Afessa B, Micek ST, Kollef MH: The importance of fluid management in acute lung injury secondary to septic shock. Chest. 2009, 136: 102-109. 10.1378/chest.08-2706.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, Ressler J, Muzzin A, Knoblich B, Peterson E, Tomlanovich M: Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2001, 345: 1368-1377. 10.1056/NEJMoa010307.CrossRef Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, Ressler J, Muzzin A, Knoblich B, Peterson E, Tomlanovich M: Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2001, 345: 1368-1377. 10.1056/NEJMoa010307.CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Pearse RM, Harrison DA, MacDonald N, Gillies MA, Blunt M, Ackland G, Grocott MP, Ahern A, Griggs K, Scott R, Hinds C, Rowan K, Group OS: Effect of a perioperative, cardiac output-guided hemodynamic therapy algorithm on outcomes following major gastrointestinal surgery: a randomized clinical trial and systematic review. JAMA. 2014, 311: 2181-2190. 10.1001/jama.2014.5305.CrossRef Pearse RM, Harrison DA, MacDonald N, Gillies MA, Blunt M, Ackland G, Grocott MP, Ahern A, Griggs K, Scott R, Hinds C, Rowan K, Group OS: Effect of a perioperative, cardiac output-guided hemodynamic therapy algorithm on outcomes following major gastrointestinal surgery: a randomized clinical trial and systematic review. JAMA. 2014, 311: 2181-2190. 10.1001/jama.2014.5305.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Michard F, Teboul JL: Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: a critical analysis of the evidence. Chest. 2002, 121: 2000-2008. 10.1378/chest.121.6.2000.CrossRef Michard F, Teboul JL: Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: a critical analysis of the evidence. Chest. 2002, 121: 2000-2008. 10.1378/chest.121.6.2000.CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Vincent JL, Weil MH: Fluid challenge revisited. Crit Care Med. 2006, 34: 1333-1337. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000214677.76535.A5.CrossRef Vincent JL, Weil MH: Fluid challenge revisited. Crit Care Med. 2006, 34: 1333-1337. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000214677.76535.A5.CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Marik PE: Techniques for assessment of intravascular volume in critically ill patients. J Intensive Care Med. 2009, 24: 329-337. 10.1177/0885066609340640.CrossRef Marik PE: Techniques for assessment of intravascular volume in critically ill patients. J Intensive Care Med. 2009, 24: 329-337. 10.1177/0885066609340640.CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Umbrello M, Formenti P, Galimberti A, Curti M, Zaniboni M, Iapichino G: On-line measurement of systolic pressure variation and pulse pressure variation on a multiparametric monitor. Intensive Care Med. 2008, 34: 386-387. 10.1007/s00134-007-0913-7.CrossRef Umbrello M, Formenti P, Galimberti A, Curti M, Zaniboni M, Iapichino G: On-line measurement of systolic pressure variation and pulse pressure variation on a multiparametric monitor. Intensive Care Med. 2008, 34: 386-387. 10.1007/s00134-007-0913-7.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Marik PE, Cavallazzi R, Vasu T, Hirani A: Dynamic changes in arterial waveform derived variables and fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review of the literature. Crit Care Med. 2009, 37: 2642-2647. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a590da.CrossRef Marik PE, Cavallazzi R, Vasu T, Hirani A: Dynamic changes in arterial waveform derived variables and fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review of the literature. Crit Care Med. 2009, 37: 2642-2647. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a590da.CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, Leeflang MM, Sterne JA, Bossuyt PM: QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011, 155: 529-536. 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009.CrossRef Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, Leeflang MM, Sterne JA, Bossuyt PM: QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011, 155: 529-536. 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J: The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003, 3: 25-28. 10.1186/1471-2288-3-25.CrossRef Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J: The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003, 3: 25-28. 10.1186/1471-2288-3-25.CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Whiting P, Harbord R, Kleijnen J: No role for quality scores in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005, 5: 19-10.1186/1471-2288-5-19.CrossRef Whiting P, Harbord R, Kleijnen J: No role for quality scores in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005, 5: 19-10.1186/1471-2288-5-19.CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Riley RD, Abrams KR, Lambert PC, Sutton AJ, Thompson JR: An evaluation of bivariate random-effects meta-analysis for the joint synthesis of two correlated outcomes. Stat Med. 2007, 26: 78-97. 10.1002/sim.2524.CrossRef Riley RD, Abrams KR, Lambert PC, Sutton AJ, Thompson JR: An evaluation of bivariate random-effects meta-analysis for the joint synthesis of two correlated outcomes. Stat Med. 2007, 26: 78-97. 10.1002/sim.2524.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Riley RD, Abrams KR, Sutton AJ, Lambert PC, Thompson JR: Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and the estimation of between-study correlation. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007, 7: 3-10.1186/1471-2288-7-3.CrossRef Riley RD, Abrams KR, Sutton AJ, Lambert PC, Thompson JR: Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and the estimation of between-study correlation. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007, 7: 3-10.1186/1471-2288-7-3.CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Riley RD, Thompson JR, Abrams KR: An alternative model for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis when the within-study correlations are unknown. Biostatistics. 2008, 9: 172-186. 10.1093/biostatistics/kxm023.CrossRef Riley RD, Thompson JR, Abrams KR: An alternative model for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis when the within-study correlations are unknown. Biostatistics. 2008, 9: 172-186. 10.1093/biostatistics/kxm023.CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG: Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. BMJ. 2003, 327: 557-560. 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.CrossRef Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG: Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. BMJ. 2003, 327: 557-560. 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B: Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993, 12: 1293-1316. 10.1002/sim.4780121403.CrossRef Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B: Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993, 12: 1293-1316. 10.1002/sim.4780121403.CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L: The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58: 882-893. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016.CrossRef Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L: The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58: 882-893. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016.CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Michard F, Boussat S, Chemla D, Anguel N, Mercat A, Lecarpentier Y, Richard C, Pinsky MR, Teboul JL: Relation between respiratory changes in arterial pulse pressure and fluid responsiveness in septic patients with acute circulatory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000, 162: 134-138. 10.1164/ajrccm.162.1.9903035.CrossRef Michard F, Boussat S, Chemla D, Anguel N, Mercat A, Lecarpentier Y, Richard C, Pinsky MR, Teboul JL: Relation between respiratory changes in arterial pulse pressure and fluid responsiveness in septic patients with acute circulatory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000, 162: 134-138. 10.1164/ajrccm.162.1.9903035.CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Kramer A, Zygun D, Hawes H, Easton P, Ferland A: Pulse pressure variation predicts fluid responsiveness following coronary artery bypass surgery. Chest. 2004, 126: 1563-1568. 10.1378/chest.126.5.1563.CrossRef Kramer A, Zygun D, Hawes H, Easton P, Ferland A: Pulse pressure variation predicts fluid responsiveness following coronary artery bypass surgery. Chest. 2004, 126: 1563-1568. 10.1378/chest.126.5.1563.CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Feissel M, Badie J, Merlani PG, Faller JP, Bendjelid K: Pre-ejection period variations predict the fluid responsiveness of septic ventilated patients. Crit Care Med. 2005, 33: 2534-2539. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000186415.43713.2F.CrossRef Feissel M, Badie J, Merlani PG, Faller JP, Bendjelid K: Pre-ejection period variations predict the fluid responsiveness of septic ventilated patients. Crit Care Med. 2005, 33: 2534-2539. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000186415.43713.2F.CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Charron C, Fessenmeyer C, Cosson C, Mazoit JX, Hebert JL, Benhamou D, Edouard AR: The influence of tidal volume on the dynamic variables of fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients. Anesth Analg. 2006, 102: 1511-1517. 10.1213/01.ane.0000209015.21418.f4.CrossRef Charron C, Fessenmeyer C, Cosson C, Mazoit JX, Hebert JL, Benhamou D, Edouard AR: The influence of tidal volume on the dynamic variables of fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients. Anesth Analg. 2006, 102: 1511-1517. 10.1213/01.ane.0000209015.21418.f4.CrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Monnet X, Rienzo M, Osman D, Anguel N, Richard C, Pinsky MR, Teboul JL: Passive leg raising predicts fluid responsiveness in the critically ill. Crit Care Med. 2006, 34: 1402-1407. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000215453.11735.06.CrossRef Monnet X, Rienzo M, Osman D, Anguel N, Richard C, Pinsky MR, Teboul JL: Passive leg raising predicts fluid responsiveness in the critically ill. Crit Care Med. 2006, 34: 1402-1407. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000215453.11735.06.CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Feissel M, Teboul JL, Merlani P, Badie J, Faller JP, Bendjelid K: Plethysmographic dynamic indices predict fluid responsiveness in septic ventilated patients. Intensive Care Med. 2007, 33: 993-999. 10.1007/s00134-007-0602-6.CrossRef Feissel M, Teboul JL, Merlani P, Badie J, Faller JP, Bendjelid K: Plethysmographic dynamic indices predict fluid responsiveness in septic ventilated patients. Intensive Care Med. 2007, 33: 993-999. 10.1007/s00134-007-0602-6.CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Wyffels PAH, Durnez PJ, Helderweirt J, Stockman WM, De Kegel D: Ventilation-induced plethysmographic variations predict fluid responsiveness in ventilated postoperative cardiac surgery patients. Anesth Analg. 2007, 105: 448-452. 10.1213/01.ane.0000267520.16003.17.CrossRef Wyffels PAH, Durnez PJ, Helderweirt J, Stockman WM, De Kegel D: Ventilation-induced plethysmographic variations predict fluid responsiveness in ventilated postoperative cardiac surgery patients. Anesth Analg. 2007, 105: 448-452. 10.1213/01.ane.0000267520.16003.17.CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Auler JO, Galas F, Hajjar L, Santos L, Carvalho T, Michard F: Online monitoring of pulse pressure variation to guide fluid therapy after cardiac surgery. Anesth Analg. 2008, 106: 1201-1206. 10.1213/01.ane.0000287664.03547.c6.CrossRef Auler JO, Galas F, Hajjar L, Santos L, Carvalho T, Michard F: Online monitoring of pulse pressure variation to guide fluid therapy after cardiac surgery. Anesth Analg. 2008, 106: 1201-1206. 10.1213/01.ane.0000287664.03547.c6.CrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Monge Garcia MI, Gil Cano A, Diaz Monrové JC: Brachial artery peak velocity variation to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. Crit Care. 2009, 13: R142-10.1186/cc8027.CrossRef Monge Garcia MI, Gil Cano A, Diaz Monrové JC: Brachial artery peak velocity variation to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. Crit Care. 2009, 13: R142-10.1186/cc8027.CrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Vistisen ST, Struijk JJ, Larsson A: Automated pre-ejection period variation indexed to tidal volume predicts fluid responsiveness after cardiac surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009, 53: 534-542. 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01893.x.CrossRef Vistisen ST, Struijk JJ, Larsson A: Automated pre-ejection period variation indexed to tidal volume predicts fluid responsiveness after cardiac surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009, 53: 534-542. 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01893.x.CrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Loupec T, Nanadoumgar H, Frasca D, Petitpas F, Laksiri L, Baudouin D, Debaene B, Dahyot-Fizelier C, Mimoz O: Pleth variability index predicts fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2011, 39: 294-299. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181ffde1c.CrossRef Loupec T, Nanadoumgar H, Frasca D, Petitpas F, Laksiri L, Baudouin D, Debaene B, Dahyot-Fizelier C, Mimoz O: Pleth variability index predicts fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2011, 39: 294-299. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181ffde1c.CrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Biais M, Cottenceau V, Stecken L, Jean M, Ottolenghi L, Roullet S, Quinart A, Sztark F: Evaluation of stroke volume variations obtained with the pressure recording analytic method. Crit Care Med. 2012, 40: 1186-1191. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31823bc632.CrossRef Biais M, Cottenceau V, Stecken L, Jean M, Ottolenghi L, Roullet S, Quinart A, Sztark F: Evaluation of stroke volume variations obtained with the pressure recording analytic method. Crit Care Med. 2012, 40: 1186-1191. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31823bc632.CrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Cecconi M, Monti G, Hamilton MA, Puntis M, Dawson D, Tuccillo ML, Della Rocca G, Grounds RM, Rhodes A: Efficacy of functional hemodynamic parameters in predicting fluid responsiveness with pulse power analysis in surgical patients. Minerva Anestesiol. 2012, 78: 527-533. Cecconi M, Monti G, Hamilton MA, Puntis M, Dawson D, Tuccillo ML, Della Rocca G, Grounds RM, Rhodes A: Efficacy of functional hemodynamic parameters in predicting fluid responsiveness with pulse power analysis in surgical patients. Minerva Anestesiol. 2012, 78: 527-533.
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Fellahi JL, Fischer MO, Rebet O, Massetti M, Gérard JL, Hanouz JL: A comparison of endotracheal bioimpedance cardiography and transpulmonary thermodilution in cardiac surgery patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2012, 26: 217-222. 10.1053/j.jvca.2011.06.023.CrossRef Fellahi JL, Fischer MO, Rebet O, Massetti M, Gérard JL, Hanouz JL: A comparison of endotracheal bioimpedance cardiography and transpulmonary thermodilution in cardiac surgery patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2012, 26: 217-222. 10.1053/j.jvca.2011.06.023.CrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Khwannimit B, Bhurayanontachai R: Prediction of fluid responsiveness in septic shock patients: comparing stroke volume variation by FloTrac/Vigileo and automated pulse pressure variation. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2012, 29: 64-69. 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32834b7d82.CrossRef Khwannimit B, Bhurayanontachai R: Prediction of fluid responsiveness in septic shock patients: comparing stroke volume variation by FloTrac/Vigileo and automated pulse pressure variation. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2012, 29: 64-69. 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32834b7d82.CrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Monnet X, Bleibtreu A, Ferre A, Dres M, Gharbi R, Richard C, Teboul JL: Passive leg-raising and end-expiratory occlusion tests perform better than pulse pressure variation in patients with low respiratory system compliance. Crit Care Med. 2012, 40: 152-157. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31822f08d7.CrossRef Monnet X, Bleibtreu A, Ferre A, Dres M, Gharbi R, Richard C, Teboul JL: Passive leg-raising and end-expiratory occlusion tests perform better than pulse pressure variation in patients with low respiratory system compliance. Crit Care Med. 2012, 40: 152-157. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31822f08d7.CrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Monnet X, Dres M, Ferre A, Le Teuff G, Jozwiak M, Bleibtreu A, Le Deley MC, Chemla D, Richard C, Teboul JL: Prediction of fluid responsiveness by a continuous non-invasive assessment of arterial pressure in critically ill patients: comparison with four other dynamic indices. Br J Anaesth. 2012, 109: 330-338. 10.1093/bja/aes182.CrossRef Monnet X, Dres M, Ferre A, Le Teuff G, Jozwiak M, Bleibtreu A, Le Deley MC, Chemla D, Richard C, Teboul JL: Prediction of fluid responsiveness by a continuous non-invasive assessment of arterial pressure in critically ill patients: comparison with four other dynamic indices. Br J Anaesth. 2012, 109: 330-338. 10.1093/bja/aes182.CrossRef
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Yazigi A, Khoury E, Hlais S, Madi-Jebara S, Haddad F, Hayek G, Jabbour K: Pulse pressure variation predicts fluid responsiveness in elderly patients after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2012, 26: 387-390. 10.1053/j.jvca.2011.09.014.CrossRef Yazigi A, Khoury E, Hlais S, Madi-Jebara S, Haddad F, Hayek G, Jabbour K: Pulse pressure variation predicts fluid responsiveness in elderly patients after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2012, 26: 387-390. 10.1053/j.jvca.2011.09.014.CrossRef
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Fischer MO, Coucoravas J, Truong J, Zhu L, Gérard JL, Hanouz JL, Fellahi JL: Assessment of changes in cardiac index and fluid responsiveness: a comparison of Nexfin and transpulmonary thermodilution. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2013, 57: 704-712. 10.1111/aas.12108.CrossRef Fischer MO, Coucoravas J, Truong J, Zhu L, Gérard JL, Hanouz JL, Fellahi JL: Assessment of changes in cardiac index and fluid responsiveness: a comparison of Nexfin and transpulmonary thermodilution. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2013, 57: 704-712. 10.1111/aas.12108.CrossRef
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Fischer MO, Pelissier A, Bohadana D, Gérard JL, Hanouz JL, Fellahi JL: Prediction of responsiveness to an intravenous fluid challenge in patients after cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass: a comparison between arterial pulse pressure variation and digital plethysmographic variability index. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2013, 27: 1087-1093. 10.1053/j.jvca.2013.02.024.CrossRef Fischer MO, Pelissier A, Bohadana D, Gérard JL, Hanouz JL, Fellahi JL: Prediction of responsiveness to an intravenous fluid challenge in patients after cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass: a comparison between arterial pulse pressure variation and digital plethysmographic variability index. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2013, 27: 1087-1093. 10.1053/j.jvca.2013.02.024.CrossRef
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Ishihara H, Hashiba E, Okawa H, Saito J, Kasai T, Tsubo T: Neither dynamic, static, nor volumetric variables can accurately predict fluid responsiveness early after abdominothoracic esophagectomy. Perioper Med (Lond). 2013, 2: 3-10.1186/2047-0525-2-3.CrossRef Ishihara H, Hashiba E, Okawa H, Saito J, Kasai T, Tsubo T: Neither dynamic, static, nor volumetric variables can accurately predict fluid responsiveness early after abdominothoracic esophagectomy. Perioper Med (Lond). 2013, 2: 3-10.1186/2047-0525-2-3.CrossRef
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Monnet X, Guérin L, Jozwiak M, Bataille A, Julien F, Richard C, Teboul JL: Pleth variability index in a weak predictor of fluid responsiveness in patients receiving norepinephrine. Br J Anaesth. 2013, 110: 207-213. 10.1093/bja/aes373.CrossRef Monnet X, Guérin L, Jozwiak M, Bataille A, Julien F, Richard C, Teboul JL: Pleth variability index in a weak predictor of fluid responsiveness in patients receiving norepinephrine. Br J Anaesth. 2013, 110: 207-213. 10.1093/bja/aes373.CrossRef
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Hong JQ, He HF, Chen ZY, Du ZS, Liu WF, Weng PQ, Huang HB: Comparison of stroke volume variation with pulse pressure variation as a diagnostic indicator of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Saudi Med J. 2014, 35: 261-268. Hong JQ, He HF, Chen ZY, Du ZS, Liu WF, Weng PQ, Huang HB: Comparison of stroke volume variation with pulse pressure variation as a diagnostic indicator of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Saudi Med J. 2014, 35: 261-268.
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Rex S, Schälte G, Schroth S, de Waal EE, Metzelder S, Overbeck Y, Rossaint R, Buhre W: Limitations of arterial pulse pressure variation and left ventricular stroke volume variation in estimating cardiac pre-load during open heart surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2007, 51: 1258-1267. Rex S, Schälte G, Schroth S, de Waal EE, Metzelder S, Overbeck Y, Rossaint R, Buhre W: Limitations of arterial pulse pressure variation and left ventricular stroke volume variation in estimating cardiac pre-load during open heart surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2007, 51: 1258-1267.
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Wiesenack C, Fiegl C, Keyser A, Prasser C, Keyl C: Assessment of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated cardiac surgical patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005, 22: 658-665. 10.1017/S0265021505001092.CrossRef Wiesenack C, Fiegl C, Keyser A, Prasser C, Keyl C: Assessment of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated cardiac surgical patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005, 22: 658-665. 10.1017/S0265021505001092.CrossRef
48.
Zurück zum Zitat Nordstrom J, Hallsjo-Sander C, Shore R, Bjorne H: Stroke volume optimization in elective bowel surgery: a comparison between pulse power wave analysis (LiDCOrapid) and oesophageal Doppler (CardioQ). Br J Anaesth. 2013, 110: 374-380. 10.1093/bja/aes399.CrossRef Nordstrom J, Hallsjo-Sander C, Shore R, Bjorne H: Stroke volume optimization in elective bowel surgery: a comparison between pulse power wave analysis (LiDCOrapid) and oesophageal Doppler (CardioQ). Br J Anaesth. 2013, 110: 374-380. 10.1093/bja/aes399.CrossRef
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Michard F, Chemla D, Richard C, Wysocki M, Pinsky MR, Lecarpentier Y, Teboul JL: Clinical use of respiratory changes in arterial pulse pressure to monitor the hemodynamic effects of PEEP. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999, 159: 935-939. 10.1164/ajrccm.159.3.9805077.CrossRef Michard F, Chemla D, Richard C, Wysocki M, Pinsky MR, Lecarpentier Y, Teboul JL: Clinical use of respiratory changes in arterial pulse pressure to monitor the hemodynamic effects of PEEP. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999, 159: 935-939. 10.1164/ajrccm.159.3.9805077.CrossRef
50.
Zurück zum Zitat Bendjelid K, Suter PM, Romand JA: The respiratory change in preejection period: a new method to predict fluid responsiveness. J Appl Physiol. 2004, 96: 37-342. Bendjelid K, Suter PM, Romand JA: The respiratory change in preejection period: a new method to predict fluid responsiveness. J Appl Physiol. 2004, 96: 37-342.
51.
Zurück zum Zitat De Backer D, Heenen S, Piagnerelli M, Koch M, Vincent JL: Pulse pressure variations to predict fluid responsiveness: influence of tidal volume. Intensive Care Med. 2005, 31: 517-523. 10.1007/s00134-005-2586-4.CrossRef De Backer D, Heenen S, Piagnerelli M, Koch M, Vincent JL: Pulse pressure variations to predict fluid responsiveness: influence of tidal volume. Intensive Care Med. 2005, 31: 517-523. 10.1007/s00134-005-2586-4.CrossRef
52.
Zurück zum Zitat Vallee F, Richard JCM, Mari A, Gallas T, Arsac E, Verlaan PS, Chousterman B, Samii K, Genestal M, Fourcade O: Pulse pressure variations adjusted by alveolar driving pressure to assess fluid responsiveness. Intensive Care Med. 2009, 35: 1004-1010. 10.1007/s00134-009-1478-4.CrossRef Vallee F, Richard JCM, Mari A, Gallas T, Arsac E, Verlaan PS, Chousterman B, Samii K, Genestal M, Fourcade O: Pulse pressure variations adjusted by alveolar driving pressure to assess fluid responsiveness. Intensive Care Med. 2009, 35: 1004-1010. 10.1007/s00134-009-1478-4.CrossRef
53.
Zurück zum Zitat Wyler von Ballmoos M, Takala J, Roeck M, Porta F, Tueller D, Ganter CC, Schroder R, Bracht H, Baenziger B, Jakob SM: Pulse-pressure variation and hemodynamic response in patients with elevated pulmonary artery pressure: a clinical study. Crit Care 2010, 14:R111., Wyler von Ballmoos M, Takala J, Roeck M, Porta F, Tueller D, Ganter CC, Schroder R, Bracht H, Baenziger B, Jakob SM: Pulse-pressure variation and hemodynamic response in patients with elevated pulmonary artery pressure: a clinical study. Crit Care 2010, 14:R111.,
54.
Zurück zum Zitat Pestana D, Espinosa E, Eden A, Najera D, Collar L, Aldecoa C, Higuera E, Escribano S, Bystritski D, Pascual J, Fernandez-Garijo P, de Prada B, Muriel A, Pizov R: Perioperative goal-directed hemodynamic optimization using noninvasive cardiac output monitoring in major abdominal surgery: a prospective, randomized, multicenter, pragmatic trial: POEMAS Study (PeriOperative goal-directed thErapy in Major Abdominal Surgery). Anesth Analg. 2014, 119: 579-587. 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000295.CrossRef Pestana D, Espinosa E, Eden A, Najera D, Collar L, Aldecoa C, Higuera E, Escribano S, Bystritski D, Pascual J, Fernandez-Garijo P, de Prada B, Muriel A, Pizov R: Perioperative goal-directed hemodynamic optimization using noninvasive cardiac output monitoring in major abdominal surgery: a prospective, randomized, multicenter, pragmatic trial: POEMAS Study (PeriOperative goal-directed thErapy in Major Abdominal Surgery). Anesth Analg. 2014, 119: 579-587. 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000295.CrossRef
55.
Zurück zum Zitat Antonelli M, Levy M, Andrews PJ, Chastre J, Hudson LD, Manthous C, Meduri GU, Moreno RP, Putensen C, Stewart T, Torres A: Hemodynamic monitoring in shock and implications for management. International Consensus Conference, Paris, France, 27-28 April 2006. Intensive Care Med. 2007, 33: 575-590. 10.1007/s00134-007-0531-4.CrossRef Antonelli M, Levy M, Andrews PJ, Chastre J, Hudson LD, Manthous C, Meduri GU, Moreno RP, Putensen C, Stewart T, Torres A: Hemodynamic monitoring in shock and implications for management. International Consensus Conference, Paris, France, 27-28 April 2006. Intensive Care Med. 2007, 33: 575-590. 10.1007/s00134-007-0531-4.CrossRef
56.
Zurück zum Zitat Parker MM: Goals for fluid resuscitation: a real challenge. Crit Care Med. 2007, 35: 295-296. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000251846.58645.5A.CrossRef Parker MM: Goals for fluid resuscitation: a real challenge. Crit Care Med. 2007, 35: 295-296. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000251846.58645.5A.CrossRef
57.
Zurück zum Zitat Deville WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, Montori VM, de Vet HC, van der Windt DA, Bezemer PD: Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002, 2: 9-10.1186/1471-2288-2-9.CrossRef Deville WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, Montori VM, de Vet HC, van der Windt DA, Bezemer PD: Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002, 2: 9-10.1186/1471-2288-2-9.CrossRef
58.
Zurück zum Zitat Oliveira-Costa CD, Friedman G, Vieira SR, Fialkow L: Pulse pressure variation and prediction of fluid responsiveness in patients ventilated with low tidal volumes. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2012, 67: 773-778. 10.6061/clinics/2012(07)12.CrossRef Oliveira-Costa CD, Friedman G, Vieira SR, Fialkow L: Pulse pressure variation and prediction of fluid responsiveness in patients ventilated with low tidal volumes. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2012, 67: 773-778. 10.6061/clinics/2012(07)12.CrossRef
59.
Zurück zum Zitat Lakhal K, Ehrmann S, Benzekri-Lefevre D, Runge I, Legras A, Dequin P, Mercier E, Wolff M, Regnier B, Boulain T: Respiratory pulse pressure variation fails to predict fluid responsiveness in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care. 2011, 15: R85-10.1186/cc10083.CrossRef Lakhal K, Ehrmann S, Benzekri-Lefevre D, Runge I, Legras A, Dequin P, Mercier E, Wolff M, Regnier B, Boulain T: Respiratory pulse pressure variation fails to predict fluid responsiveness in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care. 2011, 15: R85-10.1186/cc10083.CrossRef
60.
Zurück zum Zitat Muller L, Louart G, Bousquet PJ, Candela D, Zoric L, de La Coussaye JE, Jaber S, Lefrant JY: The influence of the airway driving pressure on pulsed pressure variation as a predictor of fluid responsiveness. Intensive Care Med. 2010, 36: 496-503. 10.1007/s00134-009-1686-y.CrossRef Muller L, Louart G, Bousquet PJ, Candela D, Zoric L, de La Coussaye JE, Jaber S, Lefrant JY: The influence of the airway driving pressure on pulsed pressure variation as a predictor of fluid responsiveness. Intensive Care Med. 2010, 36: 496-503. 10.1007/s00134-009-1686-y.CrossRef
61.
Zurück zum Zitat Muller L, Toumi M, Bousquet PJ, Riu-Poulenc B, Louart G, Candela D, Zoric L, Suehs C, De La Coussaye JE, Molinari N, Lefrant JY: An increase in aortic blood flow after an infusion of 100 ml colloid over 1 minute can predict fluid responsiveness: the mini-fluid challenge study. Anesthesiology. 2011, 115: 541-547. 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318229a500.CrossRef Muller L, Toumi M, Bousquet PJ, Riu-Poulenc B, Louart G, Candela D, Zoric L, Suehs C, De La Coussaye JE, Molinari N, Lefrant JY: An increase in aortic blood flow after an infusion of 100 ml colloid over 1 minute can predict fluid responsiveness: the mini-fluid challenge study. Anesthesiology. 2011, 115: 541-547. 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318229a500.CrossRef
62.
Zurück zum Zitat Lansdorp B, Lemson J, Van Putten MJAM, De Keijzer A, Van Der Hoeven JG, Pickkers P: Dynamic indices do not predict volume responsiveness in routine clinical practice. Br J Anaesth. 2012, 108: 395-401. 10.1093/bja/aer411.CrossRef Lansdorp B, Lemson J, Van Putten MJAM, De Keijzer A, Van Der Hoeven JG, Pickkers P: Dynamic indices do not predict volume responsiveness in routine clinical practice. Br J Anaesth. 2012, 108: 395-401. 10.1093/bja/aer411.CrossRef
63.
Zurück zum Zitat Guinot PG, Zogheib E, Detave M, Moubarak M, Hubert V, Badoux L, Bernard E, Besserve P, Caus T, Dupont H: Passive leg raising can predict fluid responsiveness in patients placed on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Crit Care. 2011, 15: R216-10.1186/cc10451.CrossRef Guinot PG, Zogheib E, Detave M, Moubarak M, Hubert V, Badoux L, Bernard E, Besserve P, Caus T, Dupont H: Passive leg raising can predict fluid responsiveness in patients placed on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Crit Care. 2011, 15: R216-10.1186/cc10451.CrossRef
64.
Zurück zum Zitat Friedman GF, Costa CD, Vieira SR, Fialkow L: The value of pulse pressure variation to predict volume response in patients ventilated with low VT. Crit Care. 2010, 14: S41-10.1186/cc8348.CrossRef Friedman GF, Costa CD, Vieira SR, Fialkow L: The value of pulse pressure variation to predict volume response in patients ventilated with low VT. Crit Care. 2010, 14: S41-10.1186/cc8348.CrossRef
65.
Zurück zum Zitat Huang CC, Fu JY, Hu HC, Kao KC, Chen NH, Hsieh MJ, Tsai YH: Prediction of fluid responsiveness in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients ventilated with low tidal volume and high positive end-expiratory pressure. Crit Care Med. 2008, 36: 2810-2816. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318186b74e.CrossRef Huang CC, Fu JY, Hu HC, Kao KC, Chen NH, Hsieh MJ, Tsai YH: Prediction of fluid responsiveness in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients ventilated with low tidal volume and high positive end-expiratory pressure. Crit Care Med. 2008, 36: 2810-2816. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318186b74e.CrossRef
66.
Zurück zum Zitat Freitas FGR, Bafi AT, Nascente APM, Assuncao M, Mazza B, Azevedo LCP, Machado FR, Mahajan RP: Predictive value of pulse pressure variation for fluid responsiveness in septic patients using lung-protective ventilation strategies. Br J Anaesth. 2012, 110: 402-408. 10.1093/bja/aes398.CrossRef Freitas FGR, Bafi AT, Nascente APM, Assuncao M, Mazza B, Azevedo LCP, Machado FR, Mahajan RP: Predictive value of pulse pressure variation for fluid responsiveness in septic patients using lung-protective ventilation strategies. Br J Anaesth. 2012, 110: 402-408. 10.1093/bja/aes398.CrossRef
67.
Zurück zum Zitat Mahjoub Y, Lejeune V, Muller L, Perbet S, Zieleskiewicz L, Bart F, Veber B, Paugam-Burtz C, Jaber S, Ayham A, Zogheib E, Lasocki S, Vieillard-Baron A, Quintard H, Joannes-Boyau O, Plantefeve G, Montravers P, Duperret S, Lakhdari M, Ammenouche N, Lorne E, Slama M, Dupont H: Evaluation of pulse pressure variation validity criteria in critically ill patients: a prospective observational multicentre point-prevalence study. Br J Anaesth. 2014, 112: 681-685. 10.1093/bja/aet442.CrossRef Mahjoub Y, Lejeune V, Muller L, Perbet S, Zieleskiewicz L, Bart F, Veber B, Paugam-Burtz C, Jaber S, Ayham A, Zogheib E, Lasocki S, Vieillard-Baron A, Quintard H, Joannes-Boyau O, Plantefeve G, Montravers P, Duperret S, Lakhdari M, Ammenouche N, Lorne E, Slama M, Dupont H: Evaluation of pulse pressure variation validity criteria in critically ill patients: a prospective observational multicentre point-prevalence study. Br J Anaesth. 2014, 112: 681-685. 10.1093/bja/aet442.CrossRef
68.
Zurück zum Zitat Teboul JL, Monnet X: Pulse pressure variation and ARDS. Minerva Anestesiol. 2013, 79: 398-407. Teboul JL, Monnet X: Pulse pressure variation and ARDS. Minerva Anestesiol. 2013, 79: 398-407.
Metadaten
Titel
Does pulse pressure variation predict fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis
verfasst von
Xiaobo Yang
Bin Du
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2014
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
Critical Care / Ausgabe 6/2014
Elektronische ISSN: 1364-8535
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-014-0650-6

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2014

Critical Care 6/2014 Zur Ausgabe

Update AINS

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.