每搏量与脉搏压变异度对机器人辅助肝脏手术预测液体反应的价值

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (12)

Download: PDF (773 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Objective To evaluate the abilities and thresholds of stroke volume variation (SVV) and pulse pressure variation (PPV) in predicting fluid responsiveness during robot-assisted hepatic surgery. Methods 26 patients, undergoing robot-assisted hepatic surgery were studied. All patients were also monitored with Vigileo/FloTrac system. Haemodynamic data such as MAP, HR, SVI, SVV, PPV were recorded before and after volume expansion(HES 6%, 7 ml/kg). Fluid responsiveness was defined as an increase in SVI≥15%(△SVI≥15%). Results The SVV threshold of 13.5% before volume expansion was able to discriminate the responders from the non-responders with a sensitivity of 66.7%, and a specificity of 85.7%. The threshold for PPV was 14.5%, the sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 100% were obtained. There was no significant difference between the area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves of SVV and PPV (0.839, 0.875), and there was a significant correlation between the baseline SVV and the baseline PPV (r=0.772 , P<0.01).Conclusions SVV and PPV can predict fluid responsiveness accuratly during robot-assisted hepatic surgery, the baseline SVV is correlated well with baseline PPV, and the ability of SVV and PPV in predicting fluid responsiveness is similiar.

Key words： stroke volume variation pluse pressure variation increased intra-abdominal pressure re-Trendelenburg position robot-assisted hepatic surgery

Received: 12 September 2014

ZTFLH:

R614

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	CHEN Yu
	FU Qiang
	MI Weidong

Cite this article:

CHEN Yu,FU Qiang,MI Weidong. Clinical value of stroke volume variation and pulse pressure variation in predicting fluid responsiveness during robot-assisted hepatic surgery[J]. Med. J. Chin. Peop. Armed Poli. Forc., 2015, 26(2): 159-161.

URL:

http://journal08.magtechjournal.com/Jwk_wjyx/EN/ OR http://journal08.magtechjournal.com/Jwk_wjyx/EN/Y2015/V26/I2/159

[6]	Michard F, Teboul J L. Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: a critical analysis of the evidence[J]. Chest, 2002, 121(6):2000-2008.
[1]	Pelletier J S, Gill R S, Shi X, et al. Robotic-assisted hepatic resection: a systematic review[J]. Int J Med Robot, 2013, 9(3):262-267.
[7]	Michael R P, Didier P. Functional Hemodynamic Monitoring[J]. Crit Care, 2005, 9(6): 566-572.
[2]	Cannesson M, Besnard C, Durand P G, et al. Relation between respiratory variations in pulse oximetry plethysmographic waveform amplitude and arterial pulse pressure in ventilated patients[J].Crit Care, 2005, 9(5):562-568.
[3]	Xiaomei Liu, Qiang Fu, Weidong Mi, et al. Pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients experiencing intra-abdominal hypertension[J].Bio Science Trends, 2013, 7(2):101-108.
[4]	Kumar A, Anel R, Bunnell E, et al. Pulmonary artery occlusion pressure and central venous pressure fail to predict ventricular filling volume, cardiac performance, or the response to volume infusion in normal subjects[J]. Crit Care Med , 2004, 32(3):691-699.
[5]	Soonawlla Z F, Stratopoulos C, Stoneham M, et al. Role of the reverse-Trendel-enberg patient position in maintaining low-CVP anaesthesia during liver resections[J].Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2008, 393(2): 195-198.
[6]	Michard F, Teboul J L. Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: a critical analysis of the evidence[J]. Chest, 2002, 121(6):2000-2008.
[7]	Michael R P, Didier P. Functional Hemodynamic Monitoring[J]. Crit Care, 2005, 9(6): 566-572.