↓ Skip to main content

Prediction of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated cardiac surgical patients: the performance of seven different functional hemodynamic parameters

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Prediction of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated cardiac surgical patients: the performance of seven different functional hemodynamic parameters
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12871-018-0520-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael T. Ganter, Martin Geisen, Sonja Hartnack, Omer Dzemali, Christoph K. Hofer

Abstract

Functional hemodynamic parameters such as stroke volume and pulse pressure variation (SVV and PPV) have been shown to be reliable predictors of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. Today, different minimally- and non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring systems measure functional hemodynamic parameters. Although some of these parameters are described by the same name, they differ in their measurement technique and thus may provide different results. We aimed to test the performance of seven functional hemodynamic parameters simultaneously in the same clinical setting. Hemodynamic measurements were done in 30 cardiac surgery patients that were mechanically ventilated. Before and after a standardized intravenous fluid bolus, hemodynamics were measured by the following monitoring systems: PiCCOplus (SVVPiCCO, PPVPiCCO), LiDCOrapid (SVVLiDCO, PPVLiDCO), FloTrac (SVVFloTrac), Philips Intellivue (PPVPhilips) and Masimo pulse oximeter (pleth variability index, PVI). Prediction of fluid responsiveness was tested by calculation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves including a gray zone approach and compared using Fisher's Z-Test. Fluid administration resulted in an increase in cardiac output, while all functional hemodynamic parameters decreased. A wide range of areas under the ROC-curve (AUC's) was observed: AUC-SVVPiCCO = 0.91, AUC-PPVPiCCO = 0.88, AUC-SVVLiDCO = 0.78, AUC-PPVLiDCO = 0.89, AUC-SVVFloTrac = 0.87, AUC-PPVPhilips = 0.92 and AUC-PVI = 0.68. Optimal threshold values for prediction of fluid responsiveness ranged between 9.5 and 17.5%. Lowest threshold values were observed for SVVLiDCO, highest for PVI. All functional hemodynamic parameters tested except for PVI showed that their use allows a reliable identification of potential fluid responders. PVI however, may not be suitable after cardiac surgery to predict fluid responsiveness. NCT02571465 , registered on October 7th, 2015 (retrospectively registered).

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 12 25%
Unknown 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 4%
Mathematics 1 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 13 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,522,480
of 23,070,218 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#679
of 1,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,994
of 330,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#22
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,070,218 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,511 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 330,076 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.