Fluid therapy in acute myocardial infarction: evaluation of predictors of volume responsiveness

• Published in: Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 2009-01, Vol.53 (1), p.26-33
• Main Authors: SNYGG, J., BECH-HANSSEN, O., LöNN, L., ANDERSSON, B., ÅNEMAN, A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acute Disease - therapy; Anesthesia; Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy; Animals; Biological and medical sciences; Clinical Science; Female; Fluid Therapy - methods; Klinisk vetenskap; Male; MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES; Medical sciences; MEDICIN OCH HÄLSOVETENSKAP; Myocardial Infarction - therapy; Swine; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0001-5172; 1399-6576; 1399-6576
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01824.x

Background: Static vascular filling pressures suffer from poor predictive power in identifying the volume‐responsive heart. The use of dynamic arterial pressure variables, including pulse pressure variation (PPV) has instead been suggested to guide volume therapy. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the performance of several clinically applicable haemodynamic parameters to predict volume responsiveness in a pig closed chest model of acute left ventricular myocardial infarction. Methods: Fifteen anaesthetized, mechanically ventilated pigs were studied following acute left myocardial infarction by temporary coronary occlusion. Animals were instrumented to monitor central venous (CVP) and pulmonary artery occlusion (PAOP) pressures and arterial systolic variations (SPV) and PPV. Cardiac output (CO) was measured using the pulmonary artery catheter and by using the PiCCO® monitor also giving stroke volume variation (SVV). Variations in the velocity time integral by pulsed‐wave Doppler echocardiography were determined in the left (ΔVTILV) and right (ΔVTIRV) ventricular outflow tracts. Consecutive boluses of 4 ml/kg hydroxyethyl starch were administered and volume responsiveness was defined as a 10% increase in CO. Results: Receiver–operator characteristics (ROC) demonstrated the largest area under the curve for ΔVTIRV [0.81 (0.70–0.93)] followed by PPV [0.76 (0.64–0.88)] [mean (and 95% CI)]. SPV, ΔVTILV and SVV did not change significantly during volume loading. CVP and PAOP increased but did not demonstrate significant ROC. Conclusion: PPV may be used to predict the response to volume administration in the setting of acute left ventricular myocardial infarction.