- Moscow Regional Research Clinical Institute named after M. F. Vladimirsky, Moscow, Russia
As a rule, methods evaluating the need and volume of fluid therapy are expensive, they require relevant equipment and it is not always available in hospitals; therefore it has been proposed to use mobile devices with Capstesia software to capture the image of the arterial pressure curve from the monitor screen and to analyze it in order to determine the variability of the pulse pressure (PPV).
Materials and subjects. The efficiency of defining the need for fluid therapy using Capstesia was assessed in the clinical settings. 95 integrated measurements were performed in 19 patients with septic shock, who had the catheter installed to monitor the fluid therapy for trans-pulmonary thermodilution; and the PiCCO2 monitor was used. Simultaneously, the test with the volemic load (VLT) was conducted and PPV was tested with the aid of Capstesia.
Results. The analysis revealed significantly higher mean differences and ranges of levels' consistency when testing PPV by Capstesia, in which the error rate was also higher than the acceptable level and it made 56%, whereas the method of VLT had only 20% of errors and significantly smaller mean difference and ranges of consistency levels.
Key Words: variability of systolic output, variability of pulse pressure, infusion therapy
- 1.S. Glantz. Mediko-Biologicheskaya Statistika. (Russ. Ed.: Stanton A. Glantz. Primer of biostatistics). Moscow, Praktika Publ., 1998, pp. 270-284. (In Russ.)
- 2.Barrachina B., Cobos R., Mardones N. et al. Assessment of a smartphone app (Capstesia) for measuring pulse pressure variation: agreement between two methods: A Cross-sectional study. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol., 2017, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 75-80.
- 3.Barrachina B., Alvarez Guerras O., Lopez-Picado A. Capstesia, a new APP for advanced hemodynamic monitoring. Rev. Esp. Anestesiol. Reanim., 2014, vol. 61, no. 9, pp. 535-536.
- 4.Bland J.M., Altman D.G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1986, vol. 8, no. 1 (8476). pp. 307-310. PubMed PMID: 2868172.
- 5.Cohn S.M., Pearl R.G., Acosta S.M. et al. A prospective randomized pilot study of near-infrared spectroscopy-directed restricted fluid therapy versus standard fluid therapy in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Am. Surg., 2010, vol. 76, pp. 1384-1392.
- 6.Critchley L.A., Critchley J.A. A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques. J. Clin. Monit. Comput., 1999, vol. 15, pp. 85-91.
- 7.Desebbe O., Joosten A., Suehiro K. et al. A novel mobile phone application for pulse pressure variation monitoring based on feature extraction technology: a method comparison study in a simulated environment. Anesth. Analg., 2016, vol. 123, no. 1, pp. 105-113.
- 8.Feldheiser A., Pavlova V., Bonomo T. et al. Balanced crystalloid compared with balanced colloid solution using a goal-directed haemodynamic algorithm. Br. J. Anaesth., 2013, vol. 110, pp. 231-240.
- 9.Fleiss J.L. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York, John Wiley & Sons. 1986, pp. 7.
- 10.Futier E., Constantin J.M., Petit A. et al. Conservative vs. restrictive individualized goal-directed fluid replacement strategy in major abdominalsurgery: a prospective randomized trial. Arch. Surg., 2010, vol. 145, pp. 1193-1200.
- 11.Gattas D.J., Dan A., Myburgh J. et al. Fluid resuscitation with 6% hydroxyethyl starch (130/0.4 and 130/0.42) in acutely ill patients: systematic review of effects on mortality and treatment with renal replacement therapy. Int. Care Med., 2013, vol. 39, pp. 558-568.
- 12.Lanspa M.J., Brown S.M., Hirshberg E.L. et al. Central venous pressure and shock index predict lack of hemodynamic response to volume expansion in septic shock: a prospective, observational study. J. Crit. Care, 2012, vol. 27, pp. 609-615.
- 13.Marx G., Schindler A.W., Mosch C. et al. Intravascular volume therapy in adults. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol., 2016, vol. 33, pp. 1-34.
- 14.Michard F. Hemodynamic monitoring in the era of digital health. Ann. Int. Care, 2016, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 15.
- 15.Saugel B., Kirsche S.V., Hapfelmeier A. et al. Prediction of fluid responsiveness in patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit. J. Crit. Care, 2013, vol. 28, pp. 537.
- 16.Yunos N.M., Bellomo R., Hegarty C. et al. Association between a chloride liberal vs chloride-restrictive intravenous fluid administration strategy and kidney injury in critically ill adults. JAMA, 2012, vol. 308. pp. 1566-1572.