Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objectives: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of inferior vena cava (IVC) distensibility index (∆IVC) and respiratory variation in peak aortic blood flow velocity (∆Vpeak) to predict fluid responsiveness in ventilated children with shock and to find out the best cut-off values for predicting fluid responsiveness.
Methods: In this prospective observational study, conducted in a pediatric ICU from January 2019 through May 2020, consecutive children aged 2 mo to 17 y with shock requiring fluid bolus were included. ∆IVC and ∆Vpeak were measured before and immediately after 10 ml/kg fluid bolus administration. ∆IVC and ∆Vpeak were compared between responders and non-responders, defined by a change in stroke volume index (SVI) of ≥10%.
Results: Thirty-seven ventilated children [26 (70.4%) boys] with median age of 60 (36, 108) mo were included. The median (IQR) ∆IVC was 21.7% (14.3, 30.9) and the median (IQR) ΔVpeak was 11.3% (7.2, 15.2). Twenty-three (62%) children were fluid responsive. The median (IQR) ∆IVC was higher in responders compared to non-responders [26% (16.9, 36.5) vs. 17.2% (8.4, 21.9); p = 0.018] and mean (SD) ΔVpeak was higher in responders [13.9% (6.1) vs. 8.4% (3.9), p = 0.004]. The prediction of fluid responsiveness with ΔIVC [ROC curve area 0.73 (0.56-0.9), p = 0.01] and ΔVpeak [ROC curve area 0.78 (0.63-0.94), p = 0.002] was similar. The best cut-off of ∆IVC to predict fluid responsiveness was 23% (sensitivity, 60.8%; specificity, 85.7%) and ΔVpeak was 11.3% (sensitivity, 74%; specificity, 86%).
Conclusions: In this study, authors found that ∆IVC and ΔVpeak were good predictors of fluid responsiveness in ventilated children with shock.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12098-023-04585-x | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!