AI Article Synopsis

  • The study compares the effectiveness of finger- and forehead-derived respiration-induced pulse amplitude variation (PAV) against arterial blood pressure-derived pulse pressure variation (PPV) for predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing major surgery.
  • Data was collected from 29 patients, revealing that finger-derived PAV showed better agreement with ABP-derived PPV (3.2% agreement) compared to forehead-derived PAV (12.0% agreement).
  • Baseline variation was identified as a significant confounding factor affecting the agreement between PPV and PAV, and after adjustment, both PAV measurements showed improved agreement, with finger PAV performing generally better than forehead PAV.

Article Abstract

To non-invasively predict fluid responsiveness, respiration-induced pulse amplitude variation (PAV) in the photoplethysmographic (PPG) signal has been proposed as an alternative to pulse pressure variation (PPV) in the arterial blood pressure (ABP) signal. However, it is still unclear how the performance of the PPG-derived PAV is site-dependent during surgery. The aim of this study is to compare finger- and forehead-PPG derived PAV in their ability to approach the value and trend of ABP-derived PPV. Furthermore, this study investigates four potential confounding factors, (1) baseline variation, (2) PPV, (3) ratio of respiration and heart rate, and (4) perfusion index, which might affect the agreement between PPV and PAV. In this work, ABP, finger PPG, and forehead PPG were continuously recorded in 29 patients undergoing major surgery in the operating room. A total of 91.2 h data were used for analysis, from which PAV and PPV were calculated and compared. We analyzed the impact of the four factors using a multiple linear regression (MLR) analysis. The results show that compared with the ABP-derived PPV, finger-derived PAV had an agreement of 3.2 ± 5.1%, whereas forehead-PAV had an agreement of 12.0 ± 9.1%. From the MLR analysis, we found that baseline variation was a factor significantly affecting the agreement between PPV and PAV. After correcting for respiration-induced baseline variation, the agreements for finger- and forehead-derived PAV were improved to reach an agreement of - 1.2 ± 3.8% and 3.3 ± 4.8%, respectively. To conclude, finger-derived PAV showed better agreement with ABP-derived PPV compared to forehead-derived PAV. Baseline variation was a factor that significantly affected the agreement between PPV and PAV. By correcting for the baseline variation, improved agreements were obtained for both the finger and forehead, and the difference between these two agreements was diminished. The tracking abilities for both finger- and forehead-derived PAV still warrant improvement for wide use in clinical practice. Overall, our results show that baseline-corrected finger- and forehead-derived PAV may provide a non-invasive alternative for PPV.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6314999PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10877-018-0140-5DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

baseline variation
20
forehead-derived pav
16
pav
13
abp-derived ppv
12
agreement ppv
12
ppv pav
12
finger- forehead-derived
12
ppv
10
finger forehead
8
variation
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!