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 Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective: To analyze the accuracy and specificity of recent studies to compare the ability of predicting fluid responsiveness with Passive Leg Raising (PLR) by using invasive or non-invasive techniques during passive leg raising. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were systematically searched. Study Selection: Clinical trials that reported the sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) between the responder and non-responder induced by passive leg raising and Volume Expansion (VE) in critical ill patients were selected. 246 studies were screened, 14 studies were included for data extraction, which met our inclusion criteria. Data Extraction: Data were abstracted on study characteristics, patient population, type and amount of VE, time of VE, definition of responders, position, techniques used for measuring hemodynamic change, number and percentage of responders, the correlation coefficient, sensitivity, specificity, best threshold and area under the ROC curve (AUC). Meta-analytic techniques were used to summarize the data. Data Synthesis: A total of 524 critical ill patients from 14 studies were analyzed. Data are reported as point estimate (95% confidence intervals). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of invasive techniques were 80% (73% - 85%) and 89% (84% - 93%) respectively with the area under the sROC of 0.94. While, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of non-invasive techniques were 88% (84% - 92%) and 91% (86% - 94%) respectively with the area under the sROC of 0.95. The pooled DOR of invasive techniques was 32.2 (13.6 - 76.8), which was much lower than that of non-invasive techniques with the value of 64.3 (33.9 - 121.7). Conclusions: The hemodynamic indexes changes induced by PLR could reliably predict fluid responsiveness. Non-invasive hemodynamic techniques with their accuracy and safety can benefit the daily work in ICUs. Because the number of patients included in the present trials was small, further studies should be undertaken to confirm these findings.

Meta-Analysis of Invasive versus Non-Invasive Techniques to Predict Fluid Responsiveness by Passive Leg Raising in the Critically Ill