English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The aim of the study was to evaluate the ability of different static and dynamic measurements of preload to predict fluid responsiveness in patients with spontaneous respiratory movements.    Methods  The subjects were 21 critically ill patients with spontaneous breathing movements receiving mechanical ventilation with pressure support mode ( n  = 9) or breathing through a face mask ( n  = 12), and who required a fluid challenge. Complete hemodynamic measurements, including pulmonary artery occluded pressure (PAOP), right atrial pressure (RAP), pulse pressure variation (ΔPP) and inspiratory variation in RAP were obtained before and after fluid challenge. Fluid challenge consisted of boluses of either crystalloid or colloid until cardiac output reached a plateau. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate the predictive value of the indices to the response to fluids, as defined by an increase in cardiac index of 15% or more.    Results  Cardiac index increased from 3.0 (2.3 to 3.5) to 3.5 (3.0 to 3.9) l minute -1  m -2  (medians and 25th and 75th centiles),  p  < 0.05. At baseline, ΔPP varied between 0% and 49%. There were no significant differences in ΔPP, PAOP, RAP and inspiratory variation in RAP between fluid responders and non-responders. Fluid responsiveness was predicted better with static indices (ROC curve area ± SD: 0.73 ± 0.13 for PAOP,  p  < 0.05 vs ΔPP and 0.69 ± 0.12 for RAP,  p  = 0.054 compared with ΔPP) than with dynamic indices of preload (0.40 ± 0.13 for ΔPP and 0.53 ± 0.13 for inspiratory changes in RAP,  p  not significant compared with ΔPP).    Conclusion  In patients with spontaneous respiratory movements, ΔPP and inspiratory changes in RAP failed to predict the response to volume expansion.

How can the response to volume expansion in patients with spontaneous respiratory movements be predicted?