Comparison of Pleth Variability Index and Inferior Vena Cava Distensibility as a Perfusion Indicator in Sepsis Patients: An Observational Study

Orhan Göktürk, Onur Avcı, Oğuz Gündoğdu, A. C. Işbir, İclal Özdemir Kol, S. Gürsoy, K. Kaygusuz
{"title":"Comparison of Pleth Variability Index and Inferior Vena Cava Distensibility as a Perfusion Indicator in Sepsis Patients: An Observational Study","authors":"Orhan Göktürk, Onur Avcı, Oğuz Gündoğdu, A. C. Işbir, İclal Özdemir Kol, S. Gürsoy, K. Kaygusuz","doi":"10.5336/medsci.2021-85651","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABS TRACT Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of Pleth Variability Index (PVI) and distensibility of inferior vena cava (dIVC) in fluid responsiveness of patients with sepsis. Material and Methods: Forty patients over 18 years of age who underwent fluid replacement for sepsis in the intensive care unit were included in the study. In our study, the patients were divided into 2 groups as those who had less than 15% increase in cardiac output (CO), and those who had more than 15% increase in CO after fluid replacement (fluid responders and non-responders). Before fluid replacement, demographic data of the patients (age, weight, cause of sepsis, body surface area, SOFA score), vital parameters (systolic arterial pressure, diastolic arterial pressure, mean arterial pressue, heart rate) and measuredd val- ues (maximum diameter of vena cava inferior, minimum diameter of vena cava inferior, central venous pressure, PVI, CO, and stroke volume) were recorded. After applying crystalloid in a dose of 10 mL/kg for 15 minutes, the recorded parameters were repeated at 15 th minute. Results: When receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed for dIVC, the area under the curve (AUC) was found to be 0.833 (0.739-0.926). The threshold value was found to be 17.52%, sensitivity was 77.5%, and specificity was 72.5%. When ROC analysis was performed for PVI, AUC was found to be 0.889 (0.817-0.962). The threshold value was found as 12.50%, sensitivity was 72.5%, and specificity was 92.5%. Conclusion: PVI was found to be more specific but less sensitive than dIVC. dIVC is less sensitive and less specific than central venous pressure. However, dIVC and PVI can give useful results in patients who have con- traindication of an invasive technique.","PeriodicalId":49403,"journal":{"name":"Turkiye Klinikleri Tip Bilimleri Dergisi","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkiye Klinikleri Tip Bilimleri Dergisi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5336/medsci.2021-85651","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABS TRACT Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of Pleth Variability Index (PVI) and distensibility of inferior vena cava (dIVC) in fluid responsiveness of patients with sepsis. Material and Methods: Forty patients over 18 years of age who underwent fluid replacement for sepsis in the intensive care unit were included in the study. In our study, the patients were divided into 2 groups as those who had less than 15% increase in cardiac output (CO), and those who had more than 15% increase in CO after fluid replacement (fluid responders and non-responders). Before fluid replacement, demographic data of the patients (age, weight, cause of sepsis, body surface area, SOFA score), vital parameters (systolic arterial pressure, diastolic arterial pressure, mean arterial pressue, heart rate) and measuredd val- ues (maximum diameter of vena cava inferior, minimum diameter of vena cava inferior, central venous pressure, PVI, CO, and stroke volume) were recorded. After applying crystalloid in a dose of 10 mL/kg for 15 minutes, the recorded parameters were repeated at 15 th minute. Results: When receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed for dIVC, the area under the curve (AUC) was found to be 0.833 (0.739-0.926). The threshold value was found to be 17.52%, sensitivity was 77.5%, and specificity was 72.5%. When ROC analysis was performed for PVI, AUC was found to be 0.889 (0.817-0.962). The threshold value was found as 12.50%, sensitivity was 72.5%, and specificity was 92.5%. Conclusion: PVI was found to be more specific but less sensitive than dIVC. dIVC is less sensitive and less specific than central venous pressure. However, dIVC and PVI can give useful results in patients who have con- traindication of an invasive technique.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
脓毒症患者容积变异性指数与下腔静脉扩张率作为灌注指标的比较:一项观察性研究
目的:比较容积变异性指数(PVI)和下腔静脉扩张性(dIVC)对脓毒症患者液体反应性的敏感性和特异性。材料和方法:40例18岁以上在重症监护室接受脓毒症补液治疗的患者被纳入研究。在我们的研究中,将患者分为两组,分别是补液后心输出量(CO)增加小于15%的患者和CO增加大于15%的患者(液体反应者和无反应者)。补液前,记录患者的人口学资料(年龄、体重、败血症原因、体表面积、SOFA评分)、生命参数(收缩压、舒张压、平均动脉压、心率)和测量值(最大下腔静脉直径、最小下腔静脉直径、中心静脉压、PVI、CO、卒中容积)。以10 mL/kg的剂量施加晶体15分钟后,在第15分钟重复记录的参数。结果:对dIVC进行受试者工作特征(ROC)分析,曲线下面积(AUC)为0.833(0.739 ~ 0.926)。阈值为17.52%,敏感性为77.5%,特异性为72.5%。对PVI进行ROC分析,AUC为0.889(0.817-0.962)。阈值为12.50%,敏感性为72.5%,特异性为92.5%。结论:PVI的特异性高于dIVC,但敏感性较低。dIVC的敏感性和特异性不如中心静脉压。然而,dIVC和PVI可以为有创技术不适应的患者提供有用的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊最新文献
Medical Interns' Perceptions and Attitudes During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study Assessment of Assistant Physicians' Competencies for Making Accurate Diagnosis with Agreement Coefficients: A Methodological Study The Effect of Scenario-Based High Fidelity Simulation Training on Autonomy Levels, Team Collaboration and Problem Solving Ability of Last Grade Nursing and Medical Students: Experimental Study Evaluation of Cases with Rabies Risk Contact Presenting to the Emergency Department: A Two-Year Analysis: A Two-Year Analysis, Analytical Research Motivation of Specialist Doctors in Türkiye to Conduct Scientific Research: A Descriptive Study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1