| Title |
Effect of fluid loading on left ventricular volume and stroke volume variability in patients with end-stage renal disease: a pilot study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s91296 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hirotsugu Kanda, Yuji Hirasaki, Takafumi Iida, Megumi Kanao-Kanda, Yuki Toyama, Takayuki Kunisawa, Hiroshi Iwasaki |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to investigate fluid loading-induced changes in left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) and stroke volume variability (SVV) in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) using real-time three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography and the Vigileo-FloTrac system. After obtaining ethics committee approval and informed consent, 28 patients undergoing peripheral vascular procedures were studied. Fourteen patients with ESRD on hemodialysis (HD) were assigned to the HD group and 14 patients without ESRD were assigned to the control group. Institutional standardized general anesthesia was provided in both groups. SVV was measured using the Vigileo-FloTrac system. Simultaneously, a full-volume three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography dataset was acquired to measure LVEDV, left ventricular end-systolic volume, and left ventricular ejection fraction. Measurements were obtained before and after loading 500 mL hydroxyethyl starch over 30 minutes in both groups. In the control group, intravenous colloid infusion was associated with a significant decrease in SVV (13.8%±2.6% to 6.5%±2.6%, P<0.001) and a significant increase in LVEDV (83.6±23.4 mL to 96.1±28.8 mL, P<0.001). While SVV significantly decreased after infusion in the HD group (16.2%±6.0% to 6.2%±2.8%, P<0.001), there was no significant change in LVEDV. Our preliminary data suggest that fluid responsiveness can be assessed not by LVEDV but also by SVV due to underlying cardiovascular pathophysiology in patients with ESRD. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 4 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 61% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 6% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 15% |
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 21 October 2015.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#1,020
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,264
of 286,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#50
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 286,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.