Evidence Hub

Assessment of fluid responsiveness using pulse pressure variation, stroke volume variation, plethysmographic variability index, central venous pressure, and inferior vena cava variation in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

R. C. de Freitas Chaves, C. Barbas, V. Queiroz, A. Serpa, R. Deliberato, A. Pereira, K. Timenetsky, J. M. Silva et al.

Critical Care, 2024

2,711 participants · 74 citations

Abstract

Maneuvers assessing fluid responsiveness before an intravascular volume expansion may limit useless fluid administration, which in turn may improve outcomes. To describe maneuvers for assessing fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42019146781. PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and Web of Science were search from inception to 08/08/2023. Prospective and intervention studies were selected. Data for each maneuver were reported individually and data from the five most employed maneuvers were aggregated. A traditional and a Bayesian meta-analysis approach were performed. A total of 69 studies, encompassing 3185 fluid challenges and 2711 patients were analyzed. The prevalence of fluid responsiveness was 49.9%. Pulse pressure variation (PPV) was studied in 40 studies, mean threshold with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) = 11.5 (10.5–12.4)%, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) with 95% CI was 0.87 (0.84–0.90). Stroke volume variation (SVV) was studied in 24 studies, mean threshold with 95% CI = 12.1 (10.9–13.3)%, and AUC with 95% CI was 0.87 (0.84–0.91). The plethysmographic variability index (PVI) was studied in 17 studies, mean threshold = 13.8 (12.3–15.3)%, and AUC was 0.88 (0.82–0.94). Central venous pressure (CVP) was studied in 12 studies, mean threshold with 95% CI = 9.0 (7.7–10.1) mmHg, and AUC with 95% CI was 0.77 (0.69–0.87). Inferior vena cava variation (∆IVC) was studied in 8…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 2,711 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free