↓ Skip to main content

Non-invasive measurements of pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation in anesthetized patients using the Nexfin blood pressure monitor

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
Non-invasive measurements of pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation in anesthetized patients using the Nexfin blood pressure monitor
Published in
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10877-015-9759-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jurre Stens, Jeroen Oeben, Ab A. Van Dusseldorp, Christa Boer

Abstract

Nexfin beat-to-beat arterial blood pressure monitoring enables continuous assessment of hemodynamic indices like cardiac index (CI), pulse pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV) in the perioperative setting. In this study we investigated whether Nexfin adequately reflects alterations in these hemodynamic parameters during a provoked fluid shift in anesthetized and mechanically ventilated patients. The study included 54 patients undergoing non-thoracic surgery with positive pressure mechanical ventilation. The provoked fluid shift comprised 15° Trendelenburg positioning, and fluid responsiveness was defined as a concomitant increase in stroke volume (SV) >10 %. Nexfin blood pressure measurements were performed during supine steady state, Trendelenburg and supine repositioning. Hemodynamic parameters included arterial blood pressure (MAP), CI, PPV and SVV. Trendelenburg positioning did not affect MAP or CI, but induced a decrease in PPV and SVV by 3.3 ± 2.8 and 3.4 ± 2.7 %, respectively. PPV and SVV returned back to baseline values after repositioning of the patient to baseline. Bland-Altman analysis of SVV and PPV showed a bias of -0.3 ± 3.0 % with limits of agreement ranging from -5.6 to 6.2 %. The SVV was more superior in predicting fluid responsiveness (AUC 0.728) than the PVV (AUC 0.636), respectively. The median bias between PPV and SVV was different for patients younger [-1.5 % (-3 to 0)] or older [+2 % (0-4.75)] than 55 years (P < 0.001), while there were no gender differences in the bias between PPV and SVV. The Nexfin monitor adequately reflects alterations in PPV and SVV during a provoked fluid shift, but the level of agreement between PPV and SVV was low. The SVV tended to be superior over PPV or Eadyn in predicting fluid responsiveness in our population.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 61 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 14%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Other 16 25%
Unknown 11 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 12 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2017.
All research outputs
#5,791,927
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#128
of 694 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,404
of 267,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#1
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 694 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,162 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.