目的:在血管内容量扩张之前评估液体反应性的动作可能会限制无用的液体给药,这反过来可能会改善结果。
目的:描述评估机械通气患者液体反应性的方法。
背景:该协议已在PROSPERO:CRD42019146781注册。
■PubMed,EMBASE,CINAHL,Scopus,和WebofScience从开始到2023年8月8日进行搜索。
方法:选择前瞻性和干预性研究。
方法:分别报告每个动作的数据,并汇总五个最常用动作的数据。进行了传统和贝叶斯荟萃分析方法。
结果:共69项研究,分析了3185例液体挑战和2711例患者.液体反应性的患病率为49.9%。在40项研究中研究了脉压变化(PPV),具有95%置信区间的平均阈值(95%CI)=11.5(10.5-12.4)%,95%CI的受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)为0.87(0.84-0.90)。在24项研究中研究了每搏量变异(SVV),平均阈值,95%CI=12.1(10.9-13.3)%,95%CI的AUC为0.87(0.84-0.91)。在17项研究中研究了体积描记变异性指数(PVI),平均阈值=13.8(12.3-15.3)%,AUC为0.88(0.82-0.94)。在12项研究中研究了中心静脉压(CVP),平均阈值,95%CI=9.0(7.7-10.1)mmHg,95%CI的AUC为0.77(0.69-0.87)。在8项研究中研究了下腔静脉变异(ΔIVC),平均阈值=15.4(13.3-17.6)%,95%CI的AUC为0.83(0.78-0.89)。
结论:可以可靠地评估机械通气下的成年患者的液体反应性。在预测流体反应性的五个动作中,PPV,SVV,PVI优于CVP和ΔIVC。然而,没有数据支持上述任何一种最佳策略。此外,其他完善的测试,例如被动抬腿测试,呼气末闭塞试验,和潮气量挑战,也是可靠的。
OBJECTIVE: Maneuvers assessing fluid responsiveness before an intravascular volume expansion may limit useless fluid administration, which in turn may improve outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To describe maneuvers for assessing fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients.
BACKGROUND: The protocol was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42019146781.
UNASSIGNED: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and Web of Science were search from inception to 08/08/2023.
METHODS: Prospective and intervention studies were selected.
METHODS: Data for each maneuver were reported individually and data from the five most employed maneuvers were aggregated. A traditional and a Bayesian meta-analysis approach were performed.
RESULTS: A total of 69 studies, encompassing 3185 fluid challenges and 2711 patients were analyzed. The prevalence of fluid responsiveness was 49.9%. Pulse pressure variation (PPV) was studied in 40 studies, mean threshold with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) = 11.5 (10.5-12.4)%, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) with 95% CI was 0.87 (0.84-0.90). Stroke volume variation (SVV) was studied in 24 studies, mean threshold with 95% CI = 12.1 (10.9-13.3)%, and AUC with 95% CI was 0.87 (0.84-0.91). The plethysmographic variability index (PVI) was studied in 17 studies, mean threshold = 13.8 (12.3-15.3)%, and AUC was 0.88 (0.82-0.94). Central venous pressure (CVP) was studied in 12 studies, mean threshold with 95% CI = 9.0 (7.7-10.1) mmHg, and AUC with 95% CI was 0.77 (0.69-0.87). Inferior vena cava variation (∆IVC) was studied in 8 studies, mean threshold = 15.4 (13.3-17.6)%, and AUC with 95% CI was 0.83 (0.78-0.89).
CONCLUSIONS: Fluid responsiveness can be reliably assessed in adult patients under mechanical ventilation. Among the five maneuvers compared in predicting fluid responsiveness, PPV, SVV, and PVI were superior to CVP and ∆IVC. However, there is no data supporting any of the above mentioned as being the best maneuver. Additionally, other well-established tests, such as the passive leg raising test, end-expiratory occlusion test, and tidal volume challenge, are also reliable.