Accuracy of stroke volume variation in predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 2.1k Downloads
Stroke volume variation (SVV) appears to be a good predictor of fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients. However, a wide range of its predictive values has been reported in recent years. We therefore undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials that investigated the diagnostic value of SVV in predicting fluid responsiveness.
Clinical investigations were identified from several sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, WANFANG, and CENTRAL. Original articles investigating the diagnostic value of SVV in predicting fluid responsiveness were considered to be eligible. Participants included critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) or operating room (OR) who require hemodynamic monitoring.
A total of 568 patients from 23 studies were included in our final analysis. Baseline SVV was correlated to fluid responsiveness with a pooled correlation coefficient of 0.718. Across all settings, we found a diagnostic odds ratio of 18.4 for SVV to predict fluid responsiveness at a sensitivity of 0.81 and specificity of 0.80. The SVV was of diagnostic value for fluid responsiveness in OR or ICU patients monitored with the PiCCO or the FloTrac/Vigileo system, and in patients ventilated with tidal volume greater than 8 ml/kg.
SVV is of diagnostic value in predicting fluid responsiveness in various settings.
KeywordsMeta-analysis Stroke volume variation Fluid responsiveness
Conflict of interest
The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Antonelli M, Levy M, Andrews PJ, Chastre J, Hudson LD, Manthous C, Meduri GU, Moreno RP, Putensen C, Stewart T, Torres A. Hemodynamic monitoring in shock and implications for management. International Consensus Conference, Paris, France, 27–28 April 2006. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33:575–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM, Bion J, Parker MM, Jaeschke R, Reinhart K, Angus DC, Brun-Buisson C, Beale R, Calandra T, Dhainaut JF, Gerlach H, Harvey M, Marini JJ, Marshall J, Ranieri M, Ramsay G, Sevransky J, Thompson BT, Townsend S, Vender JS, Zimmerman JL, Vincent JL. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Crit Care Med 2008;36:296–327.Google Scholar
- 5.Calvin JE, Driedger AA, Sibbald WJ. The hemodynamic effect of rapid fluid infusion in critically ill patients. Surgery (St. Louis). 1981;90:61–76.Google Scholar
- 8.Michard F, Boussat S, Chemla D, Anguel N, Mercat A, Lecarpentier Y, Richard C, Pinsky MR, Teboul JL. Relation between respiratory changes in arterial pulse pressure and fluid responsiveness in septic patients with acute circulatory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;162:134–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB. Metaanalysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Field AP. Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: a Monte Carlo comparison of fixed- and random-effects methods. Psychol Methods 2001;6:161–180.Google Scholar
- 16.McClish DK. Combining and comparing area estimates across studies or strata. Med Decis Mak 1992;12:274–9.Google Scholar
- 17.Harbord RM, Whiting P. Metandi: meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy using hierarchical logistic regression. Stata J. 2009;9:211–29.Google Scholar
- 18.Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Schmid CH, Olkin I. The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ 2006;333:597–600.Google Scholar
- 21.Reuter DA, Felbinger TW, Kilger E, Schmidt C, Lamm P, Goetz AE. Optimizing fluid therapy in mechanically ventilated patients after cardiac surgery by on-line monitoring of left ventricular stroke volume variations. Comparison with aortic systolic pressure variations. Br J Anaesth. 2002;88:124–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Belloni L, Pisano A, Natale A, Piccirillo MR, Piazza L, Ismeno G, De Martino G. Assessment of fluid-responsiveness parameters for off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: a comparison among LiDCO, transesophageal echochardiography, and pulmonary artery catheter. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2008;22:243–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.He-Mei W, Jia HQ, Yong FF, Li C, Wang Y, Zhao W. Correlation between stroke volume variation and blood volume. Chin J Anesthesiol. 2010;30:814–6.Google Scholar
- 29.Hofer CK, Senn A, Weibel L, Zollinger A. Assessment of stroke volume variation for prediction of fluid responsiveness using the modified FloTrac and PiCCOplus system. Crit Care. 2008;12:R82.Google Scholar
- 32.Lei H, Zhang WX, Cai WX, Luo H, Chen YQ, Zhang S. The role of stroke volume variation in predicting the volume responsiveness of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Chin J Emerg Med. 2010;19:916–20.Google Scholar
- 44.Zimmermann M, Feibicke T, Keyl C, Prasser C, Moritz S, Graf BM, Wiesenack C. Accuracy of stroke volume variation compared with pleth variability index to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients undergoing major surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010;27:555–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 45.Heenen S, De Backer D, Vincent JL. How can the response to volume expansion in patients with spontaneous respiratory movements be predicted? Crit Care. 2006;10:R102.Google Scholar
- 48.Petrucci N, Iacovelli W. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes versus traditional tidal volumes in adults for acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;(2):CD003844Google Scholar
- 53.Monnet X, Anguel N, Naudin B, Jabot J, Richard C, Teboul JL. Arterial pressure-based cardiac output in septic patients: different accuracy of pulse contour and uncalibrated pressure waveform devices. Crit Care. 2010;14:R109.Google Scholar