Changes in Noninvasive Arterial Stiffness and Central Blood Pressure After Endovascular Abdominal Aneurysm Repair

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) on the carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) and central pressure waveform, through 1-year follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A tonometric device was used to measure cfPWV and estimate the central pressure waveform in 20 patients with an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm scheduled for elective EVAR. The evaluated central hemodynamic parameters included the central pressures, the augmentation index (AIx), and the subendocardial viability ratio (SEVR). AIx quantifies the contribution of reflected wave to the central systolic pressure, whereas SEVR describes the myocardial perfusion relative to the cardiac workload. Measurements were performed before EVAR, at discharge, and 6 weeks and 1 year after EVAR.

RESULTS

CfPWV was increased at discharge (12.4±0.4 vs 11.3±0.5 m/s at baseline; p=0.005) and remained elevated over the course of 1-year follow-up (6 weeks: cfPWV = 12.2±0.5 m/s; 1 year: cfPWV = 12.2±0.7 m/s, p<0.05). After an initial drop in systolic central pressure at discharge, all the central pressures increased thereafter up to 1 year, without significant differences compared with baseline. The same was observed for the AIx and SEVR.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair caused an increase in pulse wave velocity compared with baseline, which remained elevated through 1 year follow-up, which may be related to an increased cardiovascular risk. However, no differences in central pressure, augmentation index, and subendocardial viability ration were observed during follow-up.

Comparative evaluation of stroke volume variation measured by pulse wave transit time and arterial pressure wave

BACKGROUND

Several monitors have been developed that measure stroke volume (SV) in a beat-to-beat manner. Accordingly, Stroke volume variation (SVV) induced by positive pressure ventilation is widely used to predict fluid responsiveness.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of two different methods to predict fluid responsiveness using SVV, stroke volume variation by esCCO (esSVV) and stroke volume variation by FloTrac/VigileoTM (flSVV).

METHODS

esSVV, flSVV, and stroke volume index (SVI) by both monitoring devices of 37 adult patients who underwent laparotomy surgery, were measured. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed.

RESULTS

The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of esSVV was significantly higher than that of flSVV (p= 0.030). esSVV and flSVV showed cutoff values of 6.1% and 10% respectively, to predict an increase of more than 10% in SVI after fluid challenge. The Youden index for esSVV was higher than flSVV, even with a cutoff value between 6% and 8%.

CONCLUSION

Since esSVV and flSVV showed significant differences in AUC and cutoff values, the two systems were not comparable in predicting fluid responsiveness. Furthermore, it seems that SVV needs to be personalized to accurately predict fluid responsiveness for each patient.