Hemodynamics, fluids & transfusion
Variation in central venous oxygen saturation to evaluate fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors' conclusion
In mechanically ventilated patients receiving volume expansion, the ΔScvO2 during the fluid challenge is a reliable indicator of fluid responsiveness.
Study context
- Population
- Mechanically ventilated patients receiving volume expansion
- Participants
- 240 participants · 5 observational studies
- Outcome
- Diagnostic accuracy for fluid responsiveness (area under the hierarchical summary ROC curve, AUHSROC)
Methodological detailshierarchical summary ROC analysis
- Hierarchical summary ROC analysis
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Diagnostic performance for fluid responsiveness
| Group | AUHSROC | Pooled sensitivity | Pooled specificity | Pooled diagnostic OR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ΔScvO2 | 0.86 (95% CI 0.83-0.89) | 0.78 (95% CI 0.69-0.85) | 0.84 (95% CI 0.72-0.91) | 17.7 (95% CI 5.9-53.2) |
ΔScvO2
AUHSROC0.86 (95% CI 0.83-0.89)
Pooled sensitivity0.78 (95% CI 0.69-0.85)
Pooled specificity0.84 (95% CI 0.72-0.91)
Pooled diagnostic OR17.7 (95% CI 5.9-53.2)
Further pooled results
Optimal ΔScvO2 cutoff value
- Mean cutoff value
- 4% (95% CI 3-5%)
- Median cutoff value
- 4% (95% CI not estimable)
- Cutoff values nearly conically symmetrical, concentrated between 3 and 5%
Fluid responders
- Fluid responders
- 133 (55%)
Original publication
Variation in central venous oxygen saturation to evaluate fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. Published 26 May 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →