↓ Skip to main content

Changes in stroke volume induced by passive leg raising in spontaneously breathing patients: comparison between echocardiography and Vigileo™/FloTrac™ device

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
156 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Changes in stroke volume induced by passive leg raising in spontaneously breathing patients: comparison between echocardiography and Vigileo™/FloTrac™ device
Published in
Critical Care, December 2009
DOI 10.1186/cc8195
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthieu Biais, Lionel Vidil, Philippe Sarrabay, Vincent Cottenceau, Philippe Revel, François Sztark

Abstract

Passive leg raising (PLR) is a simple reversible maneuver that mimics rapid fluid loading and increases cardiac preload. The effects of this endogenous volume expansion on stroke volume enable the testing of fluid responsiveness with accuracy in spontaneously breathing patients. However, this maneuver requires the determination of stroke volume with a fast-response device, because the hemodynamic changes may be transient. The Vigileo monitor (Vigileo; Flotrac; Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) analyzes systemic arterial pressure wave and allows continuous stroke volume monitoring. The aims of this study were (i) to compare changes in stroke volume induced by passive leg raising measured with the Vigileo device and with transthoracic echocardiography and (ii) to compare their ability to predict fluid responsiveness. Thirty-four patients with spontaneous breathing activity and considered for volume expansion were included. Measurements of stroke volume were obtained with transthoracic echocardiography (SV-TTE) and with the Vigileo (SV-Flotrac) in a semi-recumbent position, during PLR and after volume expansion (500 ml saline). Patients were responders to volume expansion if SV-TTE increased > or = 15%. Four patients were excluded. No patients received vasoactive drugs. Seven patients presented septic hypovolemia. PLR-induced changes in SV-TTE and in SV-Flotrac were correlated (r2 = 0.56, P < 0.0001). An increase in SV-TTE > or = 13% during PLR was predictive of response to volume expansion with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 80%. An increase in SV-Flotrac > or =16% during PLR was predictive of response to volume expansion with a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 90%. There was no difference between the area under the ROC curve for PLR-induced changes in SV-TTE (AUC = 0.96 +/- 0.03) or SV-Flotrac (AUC = 0.92 +/- 0.05). Volume expansion-induced changes in SV-TTE correlated with volume expansion-induced changes in SV-Flotrac (r2 = 0.77, P < 0.0001). In all patients, the highest plateau value of SV-TTE recorded during PLR was obtained within the first 90 s following leg elevation, whereas it was 120 s for SV-Flotrac. PLR-induced changes in SV-Flotrac are able to predict the response to volume expansion in spontaneously breathing patients without vasoactive support.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 154 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 17%
Other 24 15%
Researcher 16 10%
Student > Postgraduate 14 9%
Student > Master 13 8%
Other 38 24%
Unknown 25 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 102 65%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Engineering 3 2%
Unspecified 1 <1%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 31 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 July 2015.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,211
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,634
of 176,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#27
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 176,311 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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.