Hemodynamics, fluids & transfusion
Measurement error of pulse pressure variation
Authors' conclusion
We showed that all methods that calculate PPV come with varying degrees of uncertainty.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing liver transplantation, open-access VitalDatabase
- Exposure
- Three PPV calculation algorithms with different sampling period durations
- Outcome
- Measurement error (bias and precision) of PPV calculations
Methodological detailsretrospective analysis of open-access database, Bayesian model, Best Linear Unbiased Prediction reference, Hemodynamic data extracted from open-access VitalDatabase, 3 algorithms applied to calculate PPV on 1 min observation periods
- Retrospective analysis of open-access database
- Bayesian model
- Best Linear Unbiased Prediction reference
- Hemodynamic data extracted from open-access VitalDatabase
- 3 algorithms applied to calculate PPV on 1 min observation periods
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Measurement error of PPV methods
Range of differential bias
[- 0.04%, 1.64%]
Range of proportional bias
[0.92%, 1.17%]
Predicted range of reference PPV for measured PPV of 12%, two selected methods
[10.2%, 13.9%] and [10.3%, 15.1%]
Predicted range of reference PPV changes for measured absolute change of 1%, two selected methods
[- 1.3%, 3.3%] and [- 1.9%, 4%]
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Original publication
Measurement error of pulse pressure variation. J Clin Monit Comput. Published 8 December 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →