Advanced Search

Home > Journals > Minerva Anestesiologica > Past Issues > Minerva Anestesiologica 2015 June;81(6) > Minerva Anestesiologica 2015 June;81(6):628-35

ISSUES AND ARTICLES   MOST READ   eTOC

CURRENT ISSUEMINERVA ANESTESIOLOGICA

A Journal on Anesthesiology, Resuscitation, Analgesia and Intensive Care

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Anesthesiology, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care
Indexed/Abstracted in: Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,036

Frequency: Monthly

ISSN 0375-9393

Online ISSN 1827-1596

 

Minerva Anestesiologica 2015 June;81(6):628-35

    ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Prone position affects stroke volume variation performance in predicting fluid responsiveness in neurosurgical patients

Berger K. 1, Francony G. 1, Bouzat P. 1, Halle C. 1, Genty C. 2, Oddoux M. 1, Gay E. 3, Albaladejo P. 1, Payen J.-F. 1

1 Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, Michallon Hospital, and Joseph Fourier University, Grenoble, France;
2 Clinical Research Centre, INSERM 003, Michallon Hospital, and Joseph Fourier University, Grenoble, France;
3 Department of Neurosurgery, Michallon Hospital, and Joseph Fourier University, Grenoble, France

BACKGROUND: Stroke volume variation (SVV) during mechanical ventilation predicts preload responsiveness. We hypothesized that the prone position would alter the performance of this dynamic indicator.
METHODS: Two parallel groups of ventilated neurosurgical patients with low tidal volume (6-8 ml.kg-1) were studied before surgical incision. SVV was measured at T0, T15 and T30 min during a fluid volume expansion (250 mL hetastarch 6% over 30 min) with patients in either the supine (N.=29; Supine group) or prone position (N.=23; Prone group). Fluid responsiveness was defined as an increase in the stroke volume index (SVI) of ≥20% at T30. Receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curves were generated for SVV.
RESULTS: Prone positioning significantly increased SVV. Volume expansion in the Prone group increased SVI but led to a decline in SVV from 16% (12-22; median, 25-75th percentile) at T0 to 9% (8-13%) at T30. These effects on SVI and SVV were more pronounced compared to those obtained in the Supine group (P ≤0.05). Fluid responsiveness was predicted by SVV >12% at T0 (sensitivity 88%, specificity 62%) in the Supine group. In the Prone group, the area under the ROC curve of SVV (0.53; 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.79) did not allow the determination of a threshold SVV value.
CONCLUSION: In ventilated patients with low tidal volume, a prone position may have a direct effect on the heart that alters the performance of SVV in predicting fluid responsiveness. External factor such as prone position renders difficult the interpretation of SVV as a dynamic indicator of cardiac preload.

language: English


FULL TEXT  REPRINTS

top of page