Efficacy of using tidal volume challenge to improve the reliability of pulse pressure variation reduced in low tidal volume ventilated critically ill patients with decreased respiratory system compliance

Table 4 Diasgnostic ability of different parameters to predict fluid responsiveness

	AUC(95%CI)	p	cut off value	Youden index	Sensitivity (%)	Specifificity (%)
MAP	0.55(0.43–0.66)	0.466	72	.198	71	49
Heart rate	0.61(0.48–0.71)	0.102	99	.203	87	33
CCI	0.67(0.55–0.72)	0.007	2.96	0.342	74	60
PPV₆	0.69(0.57–0.79)	0.002	7	.354	71	64
PPV₈	0.90(0.81–0.96)	< 0.001	11	.651	80	84
ΔPPV_6–8	0.90(0.80–0.95)	< 0.001	2	.683	84	84
CVP₆	0.67(0.55–0.77)	0.007	10	.216	84	38
CVP₈	0.68(0.56–0.78)	0.008	9	.284	48	80
ΔCVP_6–8	0.52(0.40–0.63)	0.81	1	.079	61	47

Receiver-operating characteristic curves comparing the ability of various variables to discriminate between fluid responders and nonresponders
AUC Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, CI Confidence interval, MAP Mean arterial pressure, CCI Continuous cardiac index, Vt tidal volume, PPV₆ PPV at Vt 6 mL/kg PBW, PPV₈ PPV at Vt 8 mL/kg PBW, CVP₆ CVP at 6 mL/kg PBW, CVP₈ CVP at 8 mL/kg PBW, ΔPPV_6–8 Change in PPV after increasing Vt from 6 to 8 mL/kg PBW, ΔCVP_6–8 Change in CVP after increasing Vt from 6 to 8 mL/kg PBW, PBW Predicted body weight, PPV Pulse pressure variation

ISSN: 1471-2253