The influence of different mechanical ventilator settings of peak inspiratory pressure on stroke volume variation in pediatric cardiac surgery patients.
10.4097/kjae.2014.66.5.358
- Author:
Woon Seok KANG
1
;
Jae Yun KIM
;
Nam Sik WOO
;
Tae Gyoon YOON
Author Information
1. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Konkuk University Hospital, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. ytg@kuh.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Cardiac surgical procedures;
Fluid therapy;
Ventilation
- MeSH:
Arterial Pressure;
Cardiac Output;
Cardiac Surgical Procedures;
Central Venous Pressure;
Fluid Therapy;
Heart Rate;
Heart Septal Defects, Ventricular;
Humans;
Sternum;
Stroke Volume*;
Thoracic Surgery*;
Ventilation;
Ventilators, Mechanical*
- From:Korean Journal of Anesthesiology
2014;66(5):358-363
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: The usefulness of dynamic parameters derived by heart-lung interaction for fluid responsiveness in pediatric patients has been revealed. However, the effects of peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) that could affect the absolute values and the accuracy in pediatric patients have not been well established. METHODS: Participants were 30 pediatric patients who underwent ventricular septal defect repair. After completion of surgical procedure and sternum closure, mean arterial blood pressure, heart rate, central venous pressure, cardiac output, cardiac index and stroke volume variation (SVV) were measured at PIP 10 cmH2O (PIP10), at PIP 15 cmH2O (PIP15), at PIP 20 cmH2O (PIP20) and at PIP 25 cmH2O (PIP25). RESULTS: SVV at PIP15 was larger than that at PIP10 (13.7 +/- 2.9% at PIP10 vs 14.7 +/- 2.5% at PIP15, P < 0.001) and SVV at PIP20 was larger than that at PIP10 and PIP15 (13.7 +/- 2.9% at PIP10 vs 15.4 +/- 2.5% at PIP20, P < 0.001; 14.7 +/- 2.5% at PIP15 vs 15.4 +/- 2.5% at PIP20, P < 0.001) and SVV at PIP25 was larger than that at PIP10 and PIP15 and PIP20 (13.7 +/- 2.9% at PIP10 vs 17.4 +/- 2.4% at PIP25, P < 0.001; 14.7 +/- 2.5% at PIP15 vs 17.4 +/- 2.4% at PIP25, P < 0.001; 15.4 +/- 2.5% at PIP20 vs 17.4 +/- 2.4% at PIP25, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SVV is affected by different levels of PIP in same patient and under same volume status. This finding must be taken into consideration when SVV is used to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated pediatric patients.
