J Korean Med Assoc.  2015 Jun;58(6):563-568. 10.5124/jkma.2015.58.6.563.

Continuous automatic pulse pressure variation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Bang H

• KMID: 2137564
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2015.58.6.563

Abstract

The continuous automatic pulse pressure variation (PPVauto) is a test that continuously and automatically measures the pulse pressure of the patients who need fluid therapy among the general anesthesia patients or artificial respiration patients for whom voluntary breathing is impossible during surgical procedure. The objective of this review is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of PPVauto. The searches were conducted on eight Korean databases including KoreaMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Seven hundred thirty-seven literatures were searched, and total of 20 studies were included for this review. On the basis of current data, we recommend that PPVauto is safe and effective test for patients who need fluid therapy among the general anesthesia patients or artificial respiration patients for whom voluntary breathing is impossible during surgical procedure.

Keyword

Pulse pressure variation; Review

MeSH Terms

Anesthesia, General
Blood Pressure*
Fluid Therapy
Humans
Respiration
Respiration, Artificial

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Flow chart of literature selection process.

Reference

1. Forget P, Lois F, de Kock M. Goal-directed fluid management based on the pulse oximeter-derived pleth variability index reduces lactate levels and improves fluid management. Anesth Analg. 2010; 111:910–914.

2. Kwak YL. Monitoring for fluid management: dynamic guides and fluid responsiveness. Anesth Pain Med. 2013; 8:1–8.

3. Vos JJ, Kalmar AF, Struys MM, Wietasch JK, Hendriks HG, Scheeren TW. Comparison of arterial pressure and plethysmographic waveform-based dynamic preload variables in assessing fluid responsiveness and dynamic arterial tone in patients undergoing major hepatic resection. Br J Anaesth. 2013; 110:940–946.

4. Hofer CK, Cannesson M. Monitoring fluid responsiveness. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan. 2011; 49:59–65.

5. Sondergaard S. Pavane for a pulse pressure variation defunct. Crit Care. 2013; 17:327.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Kim KM, Gwak MS, Choi SJ, Kim MH, Park MH, Heo BY. Pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation to predict fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2013; 65:237–243.

9. Monnet X, Guerin L, Jozwiak M, Bataille A, Julien F, Richard C, Teboul JL. Pleth variability index is a weak predictor of fluid responsiveness in patients receiving norepinephrine. Br J Anaesth. 2013; 110:207–213.

10. Trepte CJ, Eichhorn V, Haas SA, Stahl K, Schmid F, Nitzschke R, Goetz AE, Reuter DA. Comparison of an automated respiratory systolic variation test with dynamic preload indicators to predict fluid responsiveness after major surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2013; 111:736–742.

11. Keller G, Sinavsky K, Desebbe O, Lehot JJ. Combination of continuous pulse pressure variation monitoring and cardiac filling pressure to predict fluid responsiveness. J Clin Monit Comput. 2012; 26:401–405.

12. 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.

13. Geerts BF, Maas J, de Wilde RB, Aarts LP, Jansen JR. Arm occlusion pressure is a useful predictor of an increase in cardiac output after fluid loading following cardiac surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2011; 28:802–806.

14. 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. AzuRea Group. 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.

15. Derichard A, Robin E, Tavernier B, Costecalde M, Fleyfel M, Onimus J, Lebuffe G, Chambon JP, Vallet B. Automated pulse pressure and stroke volume variations from radial artery: evaluation during major abdominal surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2009; 103:678–684.

16. Cannesson M, Desebbe O, Rosamel P, Delannoy B, Robin J, Bastien O, Lehot JJ. Pleth variability index to monitor the respiratory variations in the pulse oximeter plethysmographic waveform amplitude and predict fluid responsiveness in the operating theatre. Br J Anaesth. 2008; 101:200–206.

17. Cannesson M, Slieker J, Desebbe O, Bauer C, Chiari P, Henaine R, Lehot JJ. The ability of a novel algorithm for automatic estimation of the respiratory variations in arterial pulse pressure to monitor fluid responsiveness in the operating room. Anesth Analg. 2008; 106:1195–1200.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. Davies SJ, Minhas S, Wilson RJ, Yates D, Howell SJ. Comparison of stroke volume and fluid responsiveness measurements in commonly used technologies for goal-directed therapy. J Clin Anesth. 2013; 25:466–474.

21. 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.

22. Schmid M, Prettenthaler H, Weger C, Smolle KH. Evaluation of a novel automated non-invasive pulse pressure variation algorithm. Comput Biol Med. 2013; 43:1583–1589.

23. Willars C, Dada A, Hughes T, Green D. Functional haemodynamic monitoring: the value of SVV as measured by the LiDCORapid in predicting fluid responsiveness in high risk vascular surgical patients. Int J Surg. 2012; 10:148–152.

24. Sander M, Spies CD, Berger K, Grubitzsch H, Foer A, Kramer M, Carl M, von Heymann C. Prediction of volume response under open-chest conditions during coronary artery bypass surgery. Crit Care. 2007; 11:R121.

25. Hofer CK, Muller SM, Furrer L, Klaghofer R, Genoni M, Zollinger A. Stroke volume and pulse pressure variation for prediction of fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Chest. 2005; 128:848–854.

26. Agro FE. Body fluid management: from physiology to therapy. New York: Springer;2013.

27. Payen D, Pinsky MR, editors. Functional hemodynamic monitoring. Berlin: Springer;2005.