Respiratory variation in peripheral arterial blood flow peak velocity to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Bo Yao, Jian-Yu Liu, Yun-Bo Sun, Bo Yao, Jian-Yu Liu, Yun-Bo Sun

Abstract

Background: Fluid overloading is detrimental to organ function and results in a poor prognosis. It is necessary to evaluate fluid responsiveness before fluid loading. We performed a systematic meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic value of the respiratory variation in peripheral arterial blood flow peak velocity (△Vpeak PA) in predicting fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients.

Methods: PubMed, Embase and The Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies that used △Vpeak PA to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. We calculated the pooled values of sensitivity, specificity and the area of the summary receiver operating characteristic curve by Meta-Disc 14.0 software.

Results: Nine studies with a total of 402 patients were included. Two low quality studies were deleted in further analysis. Moreover, because of different locations of peripheral artery, the rest included studies were divided into brachial site group and carotid site group for meta-analysis individually. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and area under curve were 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-0.92), 0.86 (95% CI 0.77-0.92) and 0.9268 in carotid site group. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and area under curve were 0.72 (95% CI 0.60-0.81), 0.85 (95% CI 0.74-0.93) and 0.8587 in brachial site group.

Conclusions: △Vpeak of carotid and brachial artery had a diagnostic value in predicting fluid responsiveness respectively. Moreover, △Vpeak of carotid artery had more value than brachial artery in predicting fluid responsiveness. However, there was some clinical heterogeneity; therefore, further studies are needed to confirm diagnostic accuracy.

Keywords: Fluid loading; Fluid responsiveness; Peripheral arterial blood flow peak velocity; Publication bias.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of study selection and inclusion
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Summary receiver operating characteristic curve of △Vpeak carotid artery in predicting fluid responsiveness
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Summary receiver operating characteristic curve of △Vpeak brachial artery in predicting fluid responsiveness

References

    1. Kelm DJ, Perrin JT, Cartin-Ceba R, Gajic O, Schenck L, Kennedy CC. Fluid overload in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock treated with early goal-directed therapy is associated with increased acute need for fluid-related medical interventions and hospital death. Shock. 2015;43(1):68–73. doi: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000000268.
    1. 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(9):2642–2647. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a590da.
    1. Marik PE, Baram M, Vahid B. Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares. Chest. 2008;134(1):172–178. doi: 10.1378/chest.07-2331.
    1. Osman D, Ridel C, Ray P, et al. Cardiac filling pressures are not appropriate to predict hemodynamic response to volume challenge. Crit Care Med. 2008;35(1):64–68. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000249851.94101.4F.
    1. Alvarado Sánchez Jorge Iván, Amaya Zúñiga William Fernando, Monge García Manuel Ignacio. Predictors to Intravenous Fluid Responsiveness. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine. 2017;33(4):227–240. doi: 10.1177/0885066617709434.
    1. Roehrig C, Govier M, Robinson J, Aneman A. Carotid Doppler flowmetry correlates poorly with thermodilution cardiac output following cardiac surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2017;61(1):31–38. doi: 10.1111/aas.12822.
    1. Brennan JM, Blair JE, Hampole C, et al. Radial artery pulse pressure variation correlates with brachial artery peak velocity variation in ventilated subjects when measured by internal medicine residents using hand-carried ultrasound devices. Chest. 2007;131(5):1301–1307. doi: 10.1378/chest.06-1768.
    1. Monge García MI, Gil Cano A, Díaz Monrové JC. Brachial artery peak velocity variation to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. Crit Care. 2009;13(5):R142. doi: 10.1186/cc8027.
    1. Yin WH, Chen Y, Jin XD, et al. Measurement of peak velocity variation of common carotid artery with bedside ultrasound to estimate preload in surgery ICU. Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2013;44(4):624–628.
    1. Song Y, Kwak YL, Song JW, Kim YJ, Shim JK. Respirophasic carotid artery peak velocity variation as a predictor of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with coronary artery disease. Br J Anaesth. 2014;113(1):61–66. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeu057.
    1. Ibarra-Estrada MÁ, López-Pulgarín JA, Mijangos-Méndez JC, Díaz-Gómez JL, Aguirre-Avalos G. Respiratory variation in carotid peak systolic velocity predicts volume responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with septic shock: a prospective cohort study. Crit Ultrasound J. 2015;7(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s13089-015-0029-1.
    1. Zhu W, Wan L, Wan X, et al. Measurement of brachial artery velocity variation and inferior vena cava variability to estimate fluid responsiveness. Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2016;28(8):713–717.
    1. Lu Nianfang, Xi Xiuming, Jiang Li, Yang Degang, Yin Kai. Exploring the best predictors of fluid responsiveness in patients with septic shock. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2017;35(9):1258–1261. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2017.03.052.
    1. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–536. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009.
    1. Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA. A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med. 2006;25(20):3443–3457. doi: 10.1002/sim.2380.
    1. Yang X, Du B. Does pulse pressure variation predict fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2014;18(6):650. doi: 10.1186/s13054-014-0650-6.
    1. Zhang Z, Lu B, Sheng X, Jin N. Accuracy of stroke volume variation in predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Anesth. 2011;25(6):904–916. doi: 10.1007/s00540-011-1217-1.
    1. Marik PE, Levitov A, Young A, Andrews L. The use of bioreactance and carotid Doppler to determine volume responsiveness and blood flow redistribution following passive leg raising in hemodynamically unstable patients. Chest. 2013;143(2):364–370. doi: 10.1378/chest.12-1274.
    1. Monnet X, Marik PE, Teboul JL. Prediction of fluid responsiveness: an update. Ann Intensive Care. 2016;6(1):111. doi: 10.1186/s13613-016-0216-7.
    1. Sheng LF, Yan M, Zhang FJ, Ren QS, Yu SH, Wu M. The value of brachial artery peak velocity variation during the Valsalva maneuver to predict fluid responsiveness. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2017;97(6):434–437.
    1. Préau S, Dewavrin F, Soland V, Bortolotti P, Colling D, Chagnon JL, Durocher A, Saulnier F. Hemodynamic changes during a deep inspiration maneuver predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients. Cardiol Res Pract. 2012;2012:191807. doi: 10.1155/2012/191807.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel