↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Pulse pressure variation and pleth variability index as predictors of fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing spinal surgery in the prone position

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 Mendeley
Title
Pulse pressure variation and pleth variability index as predictors of fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing spinal surgery in the prone position
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, July 2018
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s170395
Pubmed ID
Authors

Do-Hyeong Kim, Seokyung Shin, Ji Young Kim, Seung Hyun Kim, Minju Jo, Yong Seon Choi

Abstract

This study investigated the ability of pulse pressure variation (PPV) and pleth variability index (PVI) to predict fluid responsiveness of patients undergoing spinal surgery in the prone position. A total of 53 patients undergoing posterior lumbar spinal fusion in the prone position on a Jackson table were studied. PPV, PVI, and hemodynamic and respiratory variables were measured both before and after the administration of 6 mL/kg colloid in both the supine and prone positions. Fluid responsiveness was defined as a 15% or greater increase in stroke volume index, as assessed by esophageal Doppler monitor after fluid loading. In the supine position, 40 patients were responders. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for PPV and PVI were 0.783 [95% CI 0.648-0.884, P<0.001] and 0.814 (95% CI 0.684-0.908, P<0.001), respectively. The optimal cut-off values of PPV and PVI were 10% (sensitivity 75%, specificity 62%) and 8% (sensitivity 78%, specificity 77%), respectively. In the prone position, 27 patients were responders. The areas under the ROC curves for PPV and PVI were 0.781 (95% CI 0.646-0.883, P<0.001) and 0.756 (95% CI 0.618-0.863, P<0.001), respectively. The optimal cut-off values of PPV and PVI were 7% (sensitivity 82%, specificity 62%) and 8% (sensitivity 67%, specificity 69%), respectively. Both PPV and PVI were able to predict fluid responsiveness; their predictive abilities were maintained in the prone position.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 50%
Lecturer 1 17%
Student > Postgraduate 1 17%
Professor 1 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 17%
Engineering 1 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 July 2018.
All research outputs
#10,506,632
of 13,187,018 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#786
of 955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,831
of 267,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#12
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,187,018 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 955 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,677 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.