Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Using pulse pressure variation to guide fluid treatment in dogs
By Fantoni, Denise T et al.·Published in Veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia·2017·Department of Surgery, Brazil·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Pulse pressure variation as a guide for volume expansion in dogs undergoing orthopedic surgery.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 33 healthy dogs undergoing orthopedic surgery were found to have low blood pressure while under anesthesia. To help improve their condition, the veterinarians gave them a fluid treatment using lactated Ringer's solution. The results showed that about 76% of the dogs responded well to the treatment, with a significant increase in their heart output and blood pressure. The study found that measuring pulse pressure variation (PPV) was a good way to predict which dogs would benefit from the fluid treatment, making it a useful tool for veterinarians during surgery.
People also search for: dog low blood pressure surgery · fluid treatment for dogs · pulse pressure variation in dogs
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether pulse pressure variation (PPV) can predict fluid responsiveness in healthy dogs during clinical surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective clinical study. ANIMALS: Thirty-three isoflurane-anesthetized dogs with arterial hypotension during orthopedic surgery. METHODS: Fluid challenge with lactated Ringer's solution (15 mL kgin 15 minutes) was administered in mechanically ventilated dogs (tidal volume 10 mL kg) with hypotension [mean arterial pressure (MAP) < 65 mmHg]. The volume expansion was considered effective if cardiac output (CO; transesophageal Doppler) increased by ≥ 15%. Cardiopulmonary data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA, receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves and Spearman coefficient; p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Effective volume expansion, mean ± standard deviation 42 ± 4% increase in CO (p < 0.0001) was observed in 76% of the dogs, resulting in a decrease in PPV (p < 0.0001) and increase in MAP (p < 0.0001), central venous pressure (CVP; p = 0.02) and ejection fraction (p < 0.0001) compared with before the fluid challenge. None of these changes occurred when volume expansion resulted in a nonsignificant CO increase of 4 ± 5%. No significant differences were observed in blood gas analysis between responsive and nonresponsive dogs. The increase in CO was correlated with the decrease in PPV (r = -0.65; p < 0.0001) but absolute values of CO and PPV were not correlated. The PPV performance (ROC curve area: 0.89 ± 0.06, p = 0.0011) was better than that of CVP (ROC curve area: 0.54 ± 0.12) and MAP (ROC curve area: 0.59 ± 0.13) to predict fluid responsiveness. The best cut-off for PPV to distinguish responders and nonresponders was 15% (50% sensitivity and 96% specificity). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In mechanically ventilated, healthy, isoflurane-anesthetized dogs, PPV predicted fluid responsiveness to volume expansion, and MAP and CVP did not show such applicability.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28734854/