Pulse pressure variation and pleth variability index as predictors of fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing spinal surgery in the prone position

0Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: This study investigated the ability of pulse pressure variation (PPV) and pleth variability index (PVI) to predict fluid responsiveness of patients undergoing spinal surgery in the prone position. Patients and methods: A total of 53 patients undergoing posterior lumbar spinal fusion in the prone position on a Jackson table were studied. PPV, PVI, and hemodynamic and respiratory variables were measured both before and after the administration of 6 mL/kg colloid in both the supine and prone positions. Fluid responsiveness was defined as a 15% or greater increase in stroke volume index, as assessed by esophageal Doppler monitor after fluid loading. Results: In the supine position, 40 patients were responders. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for PPV and PVI were 0.783 [95% CI 0.648–0.884, P<0.001] and 0.814 (95% CI 0.684–0.908, P<0.001), respectively. The optimal cut-off values of PPV and PVI were 10% (sensitivity 75%, specificity 62%) and 8% (sensitivity 78%, specificity 77%), respectively. In the prone position, 27 patients were responders. The areas under the ROC curves for PPV and PVI were 0.781 (95% CI 0.646–0.883, P<0.001) and 0.756 (95% CI 0.618–0.863, P<0.001), respectively. The optimal cut-off values of PPV and PVI were 7% (sensitivity 82%, specificity 62%) and 8% (sensitivity 67%, specificity 69%), respectively. Conclusion: Both PPV and PVI were able to predict fluid responsiveness; their predictive abilities were maintained in the prone position.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kim, D. H., Shin, S., Kim, J. Y., Kim, S. H., Jo, M., & Choi, Y. S. (2018). Pulse pressure variation and pleth variability index as predictors of fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing spinal surgery in the prone position. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, 14, 1175–1183. https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S170395

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free