- Journal List
- Anesth Essays Res
- v.13(2); Apr-Jun 2019
- PMC6545965
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsem*nt of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice
Anesth Essays Res. 2019 Apr-Jun; 13(2): 248–253.
PMCID: PMC6545965
PMID: 31198239
Zareena Shaik and Santhi Sree Mulam
Author information Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer
Abstract
Introduction:
Functional hemodynamic monitoring using dynamic parameters such as stroke volume variations (SVVs) based on pulse contour analysis is considered more accurate than central venous pressure and mean arterial pressure (MAP) in predicting fluid responsiveness. New device, i.e., Vigileo system, allows automatic and continuous monitoring of cardiac output (CO) based on pulse contour analysis and respiratory stroke volume.
Aim:
The study aims to test the above hypothesis using graded volume loading step (VLS) to assess the accuracy of SVV as a predictor of fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing intracranial surgery.
Materials and Methods:
After taking ethical committee approval and informed consent, 60 patients aged between 18 and 55 years belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status Class I and II, of either sex, scheduled for brain surgery were included in the study. In this study, 5 min after intubation, with stable hemodynamics, patients received volume loading in successive steps (VLS) of 200 ml of lactated Ringer's solution until the stroke volume increased to <10%. Blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), stroke volume (SV), and SVV were measured before and after each VLS. Optimal preload augmentation required by each patient was measured by the number of VLS after which an increase in SV was <10%.
Results:
There was a significant decrease in the baseline BP and SV in responsive and nonresponsive groups for the first VLS, but there is no change in HR statistically. There was a significant change in SV after first VLS. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed a larger area under the curve of 0.758 for SVV compared to other measured variables. The median number of VLS administered were 2 per patient equating to a mean ± SD requirement of 368 ± 176 ml of crystalloid per patient as the optimal preoperative infusion volume.
Conclusion:
SVV is a better predictor of preload responsiveness measured with third-generation Vigileo device when compared to BP and HR.
Keywords: Neurosurgeries, stroke volume variation, Vigileo device, volume loading steps
INTRODUCTION
Hemodynamic stability and adequate cerebral perfusion are crucial in the management of patients with intracranial pathology.[1] Neurosurgical patients often experience rapid changes in intravascular volume by the administration of volatile anesthetics and potent vasodilators during anesthesia. Intracranial hypertension secondary to cerebral edema is now known to be one of the most common causes of morbidity and mortality in the operating room and postoperative periods.
Static indicators, such as central venous pressure (CVP), pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, and measuring left ventricular end-diastolic area, have been shown to be poor predictors of fluid responsiveness.[2,3,4,5,6,7] The most commonly used device for CO determination is the pulmonary artery catheter with thermodilution capabilities.
Several new techniques have been developed in this regard: aortic transpulmonary thermodilution,[8,9,10] esophageal Doppler, thoracic bioimpedance, partial CO2 rebreathing (NICO), and echocardiography. Nevertheless, these new tools are invasive (aortic transpulmonary thermodilution that requires a specific femoral arterial catheter), operator dependent (esophageal Doppler), poorly accurate (NICO), or require a long training (echocardiography).
Functional hemodynamic monitoring using dynamic parameters such as stroke volume variation (SVV) is considered more accurate than CVP and mean arterial pressure (MAP) in predicting fluid responsiveness. A new device, the Vigileo/FloTrac system (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA), allows automatic and continuous monitoring of cardiac output (CO) based on pulse contour analysis and respiratory SVV. The main advantage of this new device is that it is minimally invasive and can be used with any arterial catheter. It requires a specific bedside monitor (Vigileo™) connected to a pressure transducer (FloTrac™) attached to the arterial catheter. It does not require any external calibration. The accuracy of this device to assess CO has been tested in numerous settings with various results.[11,12,13,14] SVV calculated by this system can predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with acceptable levels of sensitivity and specificity.[15]
A number of minimally invasive and noninvasive diagnostic tools are currently available that allow clinicians to assess the volume responsiveness using dynamic procedures that challenge the patients’ Frank–Starling curve. These technologies complement one another; each has a useful place in the continuum of the resuscitation process.
Vigileo monitor
The FloTrac sensor and Vigileo™ monitor system is a recently introduced system for monitoring CO continuously. It does not require thermodilution or dye dilution, but rather bases its calculations on arterial waveform characteristics in conjunction with patient demographic data. It is unique among arterial waveform cardiac output systems, in that it does not require calibration with another method. Studies so far done indicate that even though the device is robust, it is accurate over a wide range of cardiac output conditions. This system is based on the analysis of the systemic arterial pressure waveform that does not require pulmonary artery catheterization or calibration with another method.
The possibility of determining the CO using the arterial pulse wave has intrigued both scientists and clinicians for decades.[16,17,18,19] Preliminary successes have been achieved using techniques involving determination of the area under the arterial pressure curve, as well as other methods involving analyses of various subtleties of the wave.[20,21] The issue has been quantifying the relationship between the amount of blood flow and the pressure wave associated with it. This relationship can vary widely from one individual to another and in a single individual as clinical conditions change. Knowing this relationship for an individual patient and circ*mstance allows the calculation of a constant (K), which can be used for subsequent CO assessments.
The Vigileo system, using the FloTrac sensor attached to arterial pressure tubing, needs no such calibration and provides continuous CO measurements from the arterial pressure wave [Figure 1]. The system consists of a sensor (FloTrac, Edwards LLC) and a processing/display unit (Vigileo, Edwards LLC). The sensor is a transducer that preprocesses and sends a signal to both a cardiovascular monitor (for real-time waveform display) and the Vigileo monitor.
Figure 1
Vigileo monitor
The Vigileo is relatively small, weighing only 2.1 kg, and can be mounted on an intravenous pole. The processing unit applies a proprietary algorithm to the digitized wave and reports CO, cardiac index (CI; CO divided by body surface area), stroke volume (SV), SV index, and SVV. If a CVP catheter has been placed, its signal can be interfaced with the Vigileo, allowing the calculation or systemic vascular resistance (SVR) and SVR index. When used with a central venous oximetry catheter, the Vigileo also provides continuous central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2). The rear panel of the Vigileo allows interfacing with CVP and oximetry, external video, and a printer (USB). The basic principle of the system is the linear relation between the pulse pressure and the SV.
The system also reports SVV. This is the change in SV (amount of blood pumped per heart beat) in one respiratory cycle. Patients suffering hypovolemia exhibit an exaggerated SVV. A large SVV (>10%), thus, indicates that the patient is likely to respond favorably to fluid administration.[22]
In conclusion, the Edwards FloTrac/Vigileo system represents a major advance in bedside hemodynamic assessment. It will probably be valuable in the care of a variety of critically ill patients, as well as healthier ones undergoing invasive procedures involving major fluctuations in hemodynamic status.
Aim of the study
We hypothesized that SVV displayed by Vigileo/FloTrac device can effectively predict the variation in SV with fluid load and, in turn, act as a surrogate for volume status of the patients on mechanical ventilation undergoing intracranial surgery.
The study aims,
To test the above hypothesis using graded volume loading step (VLS) to assess the accuracy of SVV as a predictor of fluid responsiveness
To determine the optimal preoperative infusion volume for these patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
After obtaining the institutional ethics committee approval and written informed consent, 53 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Grade I and II patients were included in the study.
All the patients in the study were scheduled for undergoing elective intracranial surgeries, i.e. either tumor resections or aneurysm clipping.
Type of study
This was a cross-sectional study.
Inclusion criteria
Patients belonging to ASA physical Class I and II
Age group 18–75 years
Tumor resection/aneurysm clipping.
Exclusion criteria
Patients with ASA physical status III and IV
Patients with documented coronary or peripheral artery disease
Pulmonary disease
Cardiac arrhythmias
Spontaneous ventilation.
Anesthesia
All patients’ height and weight were noted the previous day of surgery. Patients fasted for 6 h before surgery. Following placement of standard monitors, intravenous and radial arterial (20G) access were established and patients were started on an infusion of lactated Ringer (RL) at a rate of 10 ml/h. All the patients received injection glycopyrrolate 0.05 mg/kg, and anesthesia was induced with 0.04 mg/kg midazolam, 2 μg/kg fentanyl, and 2 mg/kg propofol. Endotracheal intubation was facilitated with 0.1 mg/kg of vecuronium bromide, and mechanical ventilation was set with a tidal volume of 8 ml/kg and a frequency of 12 breaths/min and was initiated to achieve an end-tidal carbon dioxide level of 30–35 mmHg. Sevoflurane 1%–2% in a mixture of oxygen and nitrous oxide was used for anesthetic maintenance.
Hemodynamic monitoring
FloTrac sensor kit was used to connect radial access to the Vigileo device for the invasive blood pressure (BP) monitor. The Vigileo device uses a novel algorithm based on the relationship of arterial pulse pressure with SV. SV = K × pulsatility, where K is a constant quantifying arterial compliance and vascular resistance and is derived from patient characteristics (gender, age, height, and weight) according to the method described by Langewouters et al.[22] and from pressure waveform characteristics (e.g., skewness and kurtosis of individual waves).[23,24,25] This calibration constant was recalibrated every minute in newer versions of the Vigileo device. Pulsatility depended on the standard deviation of arterial pressure wave over a 20-s interval. The algorithm of third-generation Vigileo device allowed patient monitoring through expanded patient algorithm database. This database informed the algorithm to recognize and adjust for hyperdynamic and vasodilated patient conditions. Vigileo version 3.06 used in this study was also adjusted for certain arrhythmias. SVV, CO, and CI were calculated from percentage changes in SV during mechanical ventilation and was continuously displayed by the Vigileo device. Beat-to-beat variation of SV in the preceding 20 s was used to calculate SVV as, SVV% = (SVmax SVmin)/SVmean. Systolic BP (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP), MAP, heart rate (HR), SV, SVV, CO, and CI were measured continuously.
Experiment protocol
Baseline SBP, DBP, MAP, HR, SV, SVV, CO, and CI were documented 5 min after intubation to eliminate the bias of intubation response. Volume load was in steps after anesthesia and before brain surgery. A VLS of 200 ml of LR was performed over 3 min, and hemodynamic variables were recorded 1 min after each VLS. Patients were documented as having a if increase in SV ≥10% or a nonresponsive volume loading steps if increase in SV <10% from the baseline. All the responsive patients received successive VLS till a nonresponsive VLS was observed followed by a confirmatory VLS to calculate the optimum preload value. However, the final confirmatory VLS is not included in the calculation of optimum preload. Placement of cranial pins and surgical incision was deferred until the completion of the experimental protocol.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Statistical analysis was done using MedCalc statistical package version 12.7.5(Acacialaan 22, Belgium).
The demographic characteristics of the 60 patients enrolled in the study are summarized in Table 1; no patient had cardiac rhythm disturbances during the study period. Seven patients who were administered vasopressors or additional fluids other than VLS, due to drop in MAP below 60 mmHg during the study period, were excluded from the study. Of 53 patients included in the study, 6 patients were scheduled for intracerebral aneurysms and 47 were scheduled for cerebral tumor resection. Patients responsive and nonresponsive to first VLS differed significantly in pre-VLS value of SBP (P < 0.05), DBP (P < 0.05), MAP (P < 0.05), SVV (P < 0.00001), CO (P < 0.0002), and CI (P < 0.003), but not the HR. Patients responsive and nonresponsive to first VLS did not differ significantly in pre-VLS value with respect to heart rate. P values for SVV, CO, and CI were statistically highly significant when compared to other variables (unpaired Student's t-test) [Table 2].
Table 1
Demographic data of 53 patients included in the study
| Variables | Mean±SD |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | 43.96±13.96 |
| Height (cm) | 155.81±6.88 |
| Weight (kg) | 59.51±12.53 |
Open in a separate window
Data were presented as mean±SD. SD=Standard deviation
Table 2
Hemodynamic variables in responsive and nonresponsive patients before volume loading step
| Variables | Responders (a) | Nonresponders (b) | Statistical significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| SBP (mmHg) | 110±19 | 119±15 | P<0.05 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 68±9 | 73±11 | P<0.05 |
| MAP (mmHg) | 84±12 | 91±12 | P<0.05 |
| HR (beats/min) | 85±16 | 82±17 | NS |
| SVV (%) | 17±6 | 10±5 | P<0.00001 |
| CO (L/min) | 4.3±1 | 5.7±1 | P<0.0002 |
| CI (L/min/M2) | 2.8±0.7 | 3.5±0.9 | P<0.003 |
Open in a separate window
Data were presented as mean±SD. (a). Responders defined as an increase in stroke volume of ≥10% (b). Nonresponders defined as increase of stroke volume <10% after first volume loading step. SBP=Systolic blood pressure, DBP=Diastolic blood pressure, MAP=Mean arterial pressure, HR=Heart rate, SVV=Stroke volume variations, CO=Cardiac output, CI=Cardiac index, SD=Standard deviation, NS=Not significant
The relationship between changes in SV and baseline hemodynamic variables was assessed using Karl Pearson's correlation. A significant correlation was found between the change in SV after first VLS and the pre-VLS values of SVV, CI, SBP, DBP, and MAP [Table 3].
Table 3
Correlation of hemodynamic variables before volume loading with the change in stroke volume after volume loading
| Variable | Pearson’s correlation coefficient | Statistical significance |
|---|---|---|
| SBP | −0.3282 | P<0.0164 |
| DBP | −0.4 | P<0.0049 |
| MAP | −0.3742 | P<0.0058 |
| SVV | 0.4339 | P<0.0012 |
| CO | −0.251 | NS |
| CI | −0.211 | P<0.025 |
Open in a separate window
A significant positive correlation was found with change in SV after first volume loading step with SVV and a significant negative correlation was found with blood pressures and cardiac index. SBP=Systolic blood pressure, DBP=Diastolic blood pressure, MAP=Mean arterial pressure, HR=Heart rate, SVV=Stroke volume variations, CO=Cardiac output, CI=Cardiac index, SD=Standard deviation, NS=Not significant
To assess the ability of different variables to discriminate between positive and negative response to fluid challenge, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated. The area (± standard error) under the ROC curve was 0.582 ± 0.079 (95% CI: 0.439–0.716) for SBP, 0.610 ± 0.0794 (95% CI: 0.466–0.741) for DBP, 0.592 ± 0.0789 (95% CI: 0.449–0.752) for MAP, 0.758 ± 0.0660 (95% CI: 0.621–0.865) for SVV, 0.820 ± 0.0579 (95% CI: 0.691–0.912) for CO, and 0.704 ± 0.0747 (95% CI: 0.563–0.821) for CI. Only area under the curve for SVV, CO, and CI was statistically significant when compared to other variables [Table 4 and Figure 2].
Table 4
Area under receiver operating characteristic curve of hemodynamic variables of patients scheduled for brain surgery before volume loading as predictors of increase in stroke volume by >10% after volume loading
| Variable | AUC±SE | Statistical significance |
|---|---|---|
| SBP | 0.582±0.079 | NS |
| DBP | 0.610±0.0794 | NS |
| MAP | 0.592±0.0789 | NS |
| SVV | 0.758±0.0660 | P<0.0001 |
| CO | 0.820±0.0579 | P<0.0073 |
| CI | 0.704±0.0747 | P<0.0074 |
Open in a separate window
Area under the cure was statistically significant for SVV, CO, and CI with higher statistical significance for SVV compared to CO and CI. Heart rate was not included as it would be a confounding variable. SBP=Systolic blood pressure, DBP=Diastolic blood pressure, MAP=Mean arterial pressure, HR=Heart rate, SVV=Stroke volume variations, CO=Cardiac output, CI=Cardiac index, SE=Standard error, NS=Not significant, ACU=Area under the curve
Figure 2
Receiver operating characteristic curves for CI, CO, SVV, MAP, SBP, and DBP before volume loading as predictors of increase in stroke volume by >10% after volume loading. Area under the curve for SVV was highly statistically significant (P < 0.0001) and statistically significant for CO and CI. CI=Cardiac index, CO=Cardiac output, SVV=Stroke volume variation, MAP=Mean arterial pressure, SBP=Systolic blood pressure, DBP=Diastolic blood pressure
The optimum threshold values by ROC analysis were SVV – 13%, CO – 4.37 L/min, and CI – 3.02 L/min/m2. Thus, if a patient had a SVV value of >13%, CO value <4.37 L/min, or CI value <3.02 L/min/m2, he/she was very likely to be responsive to a subsequent volume load by increasing the SV by >10% with a sensitivity of 58.1% and specificity of 86.4% for SVV, sensitivity of 90.1% and specificity of 71% for CO, and sensitivity of 70% and specificity of 80.6% for CI.
Patients responsive to first VLS received VLS till a nonresponsive VLS was reached to calculate the optimum preload volume. The median number of VLS administered was 2 per patient equating to a mean ± standard deviation requirement of 368 ± 176 ml of crystalloid per patient as the optimal preoperative infusion volume.
DISCUSSION
This study assessed the efficacy of SVV, CO, and CI using FloTrac/Vigileo third-generation device, which applies a minimally invasive technique (intra-arterial) to predict the responsiveness to fluid challenge for preoperative fluid optimization in intracranial surgeries. This study demonstrated that SVV, CO, and, to some extent, CI obtained via a simple arterial line are better indicators as compared to conventional noninvasive methods and can be used as a substitute for the gold standard invasive methods. Till date, there is no confirmed hemodynamic parameter that best predicts the volume status of a patient. In mechanically ventilated patients, volume responsiveness by dynamic tests which rely on heart–lung interactions is superior to static tests.[26,27,28]
The concept of volume load depends on the fact that if SV does not increase with volume load, it does not serve any benefit. On the contrary, it could harm the patient. A volume load increases the SV until the left ventricle reaches the flat part of the Frank–Starling Curve, and once there is maximum overlap between the actin-myosin myofibrils, there is no increase in SV.[26,27]
De Waal et al.[29] found that SVV obtained with the FloTracvigileosystem, using flrst-generation system software (version 1.01), which detected SVV every 10 min, failed to predict fluid responsiveness in coronary artery bypass graft patients. The shortcomings suggest that this version may not have been able to assess SVV accurately and further investigations with newer software versions were indicated. Our study used the later third-generation with improvised version 3.06 where calibration constant is recalculated every 1 min.
SVV >12%–13% has been reported to be highly predictive of volume responsiveness with a remarkable consistency. The present study also supports the above statement with a predictive value of 13% and above for SVV and also gives a predictive value of 4.37 L/min and less for CO in optimizing the volume status of patients perioperatively in intracranial surgeries with a minimally invasive technique using third-generation Vigileo device. Unlike the older generation devices, third-generation device does not require the calibration with other means of CO monitoring.
Limitations of the study
Findings were not compared with a standard monitoring device to keep the study minimally invasive
The study was not conducted in patients with large fluid shifts or in high-risk individuals with ≥3 ASA physical status. Studies in such subset of patient would help in confirming hemodynamic predictors to volume response.
CONCLUSION
The present study concludes by giving better predictors, SVV, and CO for fluid responsiveness via a minimally invasive technique in comparison with conventional noninvasive (BP and HR) methods by third-generation Vigileo device in intracranial surgeries. However, more studies in various subsets of patients and also in comparison with other preload indices will be required to confirm their utility.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
1. Guidelines for cerebral perfusion pressure. Brain trauma foundation. J Neurotrauma. 1996;13:693–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Wiesenack C, Fiegl C, Keyser A, Prasser C, Keyl C. Assessment of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated cardiac surgical patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005;22:658–65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Pinsky MR, Teboul JL. Assessment of indices of preload and volume responsiveness. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2005;11:235–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Michard F. Changes in arterial pressure during mechanical ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:419–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Rex S, Brose S, Metzelder S, Hüneke R, Schälte G, Autschbach R, et al. Prediction of fluid responsiveness in patients during cardiac surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2004;93:782–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Bendjelid K, Romand JA. Fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: A review of indices used in intensive care. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29:352–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Marik PE, Baram M, Vahid B. Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares. Chest. 2008;134:172–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Sander M, von Heymann C, Foer A, von Dossow V, Grosse J, Dushe S, et al. Pulse contour analysis after normothermic cardiopulmonary bypass in cardiac surgery patients. Crit Care. 2005;9:R729–34. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Rauch H, Müller M, Fleischer F, Bauer H, Martin E, Böttiger BW, et al. Pulse contour analysis versus thermodilution in cardiac surgery patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2002;46:424–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Buhre W, Weyland A, Kazmaier S, Hanekop GG, Baryalei MM, Sydow M, et al. Comparison of cardiac output assessed by pulse-contour analysis and thermodilution in patients undergoing minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 1999;13:437–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Cannesson M, Attof Y, Rosamel P, Joseph P, Bastien O, Lehot JJ, et al. Comparison of floTrac cardiac output monitoring system in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting with pulmonary artery cardiac output measurements. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2007;24:832–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Biais M, Nouette-Gaulain K, Cottenceau V, Vallet A, Cochard JF, Revel P, et al. Cardiac output measurement in patients undergoing liver transplantation: Pulmonary artery catheter versus uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis. Anesth Analg. 2008;106:1480–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Mayer J, Boldt J, Schöllhorn T, Röhm KD, Mengistu AM, Suttner S, et al. Semi-invasive monitoring of cardiac output by a new device using arterial pressure waveform analysis: A comparison with intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2007;98:176–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Mayer J, Boldt J, Wolf MW, Lang J, Suttner S. Cardiac output derived from arterial pressure waveform analysis in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: Validity of a second generation device. Anesth Analg. 2008;106:867–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Manecke GR. Edwards floTrac sensor and vigileo monitor: Easy, accurate, reliable cardiac output assessment using the arterial pulse wave. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2005;2:523–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Williams RR, Wray RB, Tsagaris TJ, Kuida H. Computer estimation of stroke volume from aortic pulse contour in dogs and humans. Cardiology. 1974;59:350–66. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. English JB, Hodges MR, Sentker C, Johansen R, Stanley TH. Comparison of aortic pulse-wave contour analysis and thermodilution methods of measuring cardiac output during anesthesia in the dog. Anesthesiology. 1980;52:56–61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Brock-Utne JG, Blake GT, Bösenberg AT, Gaffin SL, Humphrey D, Downing JW, et al. An evaluation of the pulse-contour method of measuring cardiac output. S Afr Med J. 1984;66:451–3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Huggins RA, Smith EL, Sinclair MA. Comparison of cardiac output by the direct fick and pressure pulse contour methods in the open-chest dog. Am J Physiol. 1949;159:385–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Jansen JR, Schreuder JJ, Mulier JP, Smith NT, Settels JJ, Wesseling KH, et al. A comparison of cardiac output derived from the arterial pressure wave against thermodilution in cardiac surgery patients. Br J Anaesth. 2001;87:212–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Della Rocca G, Costa MG, Coccia C, Pompei L, Di Marco P, Vilardi V, et al. Cardiac output monitoring: Aortic transpulmonary thermodilution and pulse contour analysis agree with standard thermodilution methods in patients undergoing lung transplantation. Can J Anaesth. 2003;50:707–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Langewouters GJ, Wesseling KH, Goedhard WJ. The pressure dependent dynamic elasticity of 35 thoracic and 16 abdominal human aortas in vitro described by a five component model. J Biomech. 1985;18:613–20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Hofer CK, Senn A, Weibel L, Zollinger A. Assessment of stroke volume variation for prediction of fluid responsiveness using the modified FloTrac and piCCOplus system. Crit Care. 2008;12:R82. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Zaky A, Jense RJ, Michalowski P, Rozet I. Failure of the flotrac™/vigileo™ (3.01) to track rapid hemodynamic changes in an unstable cardiac surgical patient. J Anesth Clin Res. 2012;3:234. [Google Scholar]
25. Mutoh T, Ishikawa T, Kobayashi S, Suzuki A, Yasui N. Performance of third-generation floTrac/Vigileo system during hyperdynamic therapy for delayed cerebral ischemia after subarachnoid hemorrhage. Surg Neurol Int. 2012;3:99. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Bundgaard-Nielsen M, Holte K, Secher NH, Kehlet H. Monitoring of peri-operative fluid administration by individualized goal-directed therapy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2007;51:331–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Holte K, Sharrock NE, Kehlet H. Pathophysiology and clinical implications of perioperative fluid excess. Br J Anaesth. 2002;89:622–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Giglio MT, Marucci M, Testini M, Brienza N. Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy and gastrointestinal complications in major surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br J Anaesth. 2009;103:637–46. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. De Waal E, Kalkman C, Rex S, Buhre W. Validation of a new arterial pulse contour-based cardiac output device. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:1904–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Anesthesia, Essays and Researches are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer -- Medknow Publications
