| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 10% |
| Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 24% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
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
#20,663,600
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#1,070
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266,174
of 341,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#22
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 341,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.