Dynamic preload parameters are used to guide perioperative fluid management. However, reported cut-off values vary and the presence of a gray zone complicates clinical decision making. Measurement error, intrinsic to the calculation of pulse pressure variation (PPV) has not been studied but could contribute to this level of uncertainty.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: Traditional formulas to calculate pulse pressure variation (PPV) cannot be used in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We have developed a new algorithm that accounts for arrhythmia-induced pulse pressure changes, allowing us to isolate and quantify ventilation-induced pulse pressure variation (VPPV). The robustness of the algorithm was tested in patients subjected to altered loading conditions.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFIn patients with sinus rhythm, the magnitude of mechanical ventilation (MV)-induced changes in pulse pressure (PP) is known to predict the effect of fluid loading on cardiac output. This approach, however, is not applicable in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We propose a method to isolate this effect of MV from the rhythm-induced chaotic changes in PP in patients with AF.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: It has been shown that ventilation-induced pulse pressure variation (PPV) is a better variable than central venous pressure (CVP) or pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP) for predicting cardiac output changes after fluid administration. The plethysmographic wave form measured with a fingertip pulse is very similar to the arterial blood pressure curve.
Methods: We investigated whether this widely used, noninvasive instrument could predict fluid responsiveness by conducting an observational study in 32 patients who had undergone cardiac surgery.