Marik PE, Monnet X. Teboul JL Hemodynamic parameters to guide fluid therapy. Ann Intensive Care. 2011;1:1.

Google Scholar 

Cecconi M, De Backer D, Antonelli M, Beale R, Bakker J, Hofer C, et al. Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring: Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40:1795–815.

Google Scholar 

Michard F. Teboul JL Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: a critical analysis of the evidence. Chest. 2002;121:2000–8.

Google Scholar 

Hong JQ, He HF, Chen ZY, Du ZS, Liu WF, Weng PQ, et al. Comparison of stroke volume variation with pulse pressure variation as a diagnostic indicator of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Saudi Med J. 2014;35:261–8.

Google Scholar 

Marik PE, Cavallazzi R, Vasu T. Hirani A Dynamic changes in arterial waveform derived variables and fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review of the literature. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:2642–7.

Google Scholar 

Yang X, Du B. Does pulse pressure variation predict fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Critical Care (London, England). 2014;18:650.

Google Scholar 

De Backer D, Heenen S, Piagnerelli M, Koch M. Vincent JL Pulse pressure variations to predict fluid responsiveness: influence of tidal volume. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31:517–23.

Google Scholar 

Alvarado Sánchez JI, Caicedo Ruiz JD, Diaztagle Fernández JJ, Amaya Zuñiga WF, Ospina-Tascón GA. Cruz Martínez LE Predictors of fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients mechanically ventilated at low tidal volumes: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intensive Care. 2021;11:28.

Google Scholar 

Lakhal K, Ehrmann S, Benzekri-Lefèvre D, Runge I, Legras A, Dequin PF, et al. Respiratory pulse pressure variation fails to predict fluid responsiveness in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Critical Care (London, England). 2011;15:R85.

Google Scholar 

Colquhoun DA, Leis AM, Shanks AM, Mathis MR, Naik BI, Durieux ME, et al. A lower tidal volume regimen during one-lung ventilation for lung resection surgery is not associated with reduced postoperative pulmonary complications. Anesthesiology. 2021;134:562–76.

Google Scholar 

Kozian A, Schilling T, Schütze H, Senturk M, Hachenberg T, Hedenstierna G. Ventilatory protective strategies during thoracic surgery: effects of alveolar recruitment maneuver and low-tidal volume ventilation on lung density distribution. Anesthesiology. 2011;114:1025–35.

Google Scholar 

Aoyama H, Uchida K, Aoyama K, Pechlivanoglou P, Englesakis M, Yamada Y, et al. Assessment of therapeutic interventions and lung protective ventilation in patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2: e198116.

Google Scholar 

Myatra SN, Monnet X. Teboul JL Use of “tidal volume challenge” to improve the reliability of pulse pressure variation. Crit Care (London, England). 2017;21:60.

Google Scholar 

Myatra SN, Prabu NR, Divatia JV, Monnet X, Kulkarni AP, Teboul JL. The changes in pulse pressure variation or stroke volume variation after a “tidal volume challenge” reliably predict fluid responsiveness during low tidal volume ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:415–21.

Google Scholar 

Yonis H, Bitker L, Aublanc M, Perinel Ragey S, Riad Z, Lissonde F, et al. Change in cardiac output during Trendelenburg maneuver is a reliable predictor of fluid responsiveness in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in the prone position under protective ventilation. Crit Care (London, England). 2017;21:295.

Google Scholar 

Jun JH, Chung RK, Baik HJ, Chung MH, Hyeon JS, Lee YG, et al. The tidal volume challenge improves the reliability of dynamic preload indices during robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in the Trendelenburg position with lung-protective ventilation. BMC Anesthesiol. 2019;19:142.

Google Scholar 

Messina A, Montagnini C, Cammarota G, De Rosa S, Giuliani F, Muratore L, et al. Tidal volume challenge to predict fluid responsiveness in the operating room: an observational study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2019;36:583–91.

Google Scholar 

Messina A, Montagnini C, Cammarota G, Giuliani F, Muratore L, Baggiani M, et al. Assessment of fluid responsiveness in prone neurosurgical patients undergoing protective ventilation: role of dynamic indices, tidal volume challenge, and end-expiratory occlusion test. Anesth Analg. 2020;130:752–61.

CAS  Google Scholar 

Elsayed AI, Selim KA, Zaghla HE, Mowafy HE. Fakher MA comparison of changes in PPV using a tidal volume challenge with a passive leg raising test to predict fluid responsiveness in patients ventilated using low tidal volume. Indian J Crit Care Med Peer-Rev Off Publ Indian Soc Crit Care Med. 2021;25:685–90.

Google Scholar 

Taccheri T, Gavelli F, Teboul JL, Shi R. Monnet X Do changes in pulse pressure variation and inferior vena cava distensibility during passive leg raising and tidal volume challenge detect preload responsiveness in case of low tidal volume ventilation? Crit Care (London, England). 2021;25:110.

Google Scholar 

Hamzaoui O, Shi R, Carelli S, Sztrymf B, Prat D, Jacobs F, et al. Changes in pulse pressure variation to assess preload responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with spontaneous breathing activity: an observational study. Br J Anaesth. 2021;127:532–8.

Google Scholar 

Shi R, Ayed S, Moretto F, Azzolina D, De Vita N, Gavelli F, et al. Tidal volume challenge to predict preload responsiveness in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome under prone position. Crit Care (London, England). 2022;26:219.

Google Scholar 

Xu Y, Guo J, Wu Q, Chen J. 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. BMC Anesthesiol. 2022;22:137.

Google Scholar 

Takata M, Wise RA. Robotham JL Effects of abdominal pressure on venous return: abdominal vascular zone conditions. J Appl Physiol. 1990;69:1961–72.

CAS  Google Scholar 

Monnet X, Bleibtreu A, Ferré A, Dres M, Gharbi R, Richard C, et al. Passive leg-raising and end-expiratory occlusion tests perform better than pulse pressure variation in patients with low respiratory system compliance. Crit Care Med. 2012;40:152–7.

Google Scholar 

Kang WS, Kim SH, Kim SY, Oh CS, Lee SA. Kim JS The influence of positive end-expiratory pressure on stroke volume variation in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: an observational study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148:3139–45.

Google Scholar 

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J. Altman DG Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(264–9): w64.

Google Scholar 

Alberg AJ, Park JW, Hager BW, Brock MV. Diener-West M The use of “overall accuracy” to evaluate the validity of screening or diagnostic tests. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:460–5.

Google Scholar 

Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–36.

Google Scholar 

Field AP. Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: a Monte Carlo comparison of fixed- and random-effects methods. Psychol Methods. 2001;6:161–80.

CAS  Google Scholar 

Riley RD, Abrams KR, Sutton AJ, Lambert PC, Thompson JR. Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and the estimation of between-study correlation. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:3.

Google Scholar 

Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA. A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med. 2001;20:2865–84.

CAS  Google Scholar 

Fischer JE, Bachmann LM, Jaeschke R. A readers’ guide to the interpretation of diagnostic test properties: clinical example of sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29:1043–51.

Google Scholar 

Mandrekar JN. Receiver operating characteristic curve in diagnostic test assessment. J Thora Oncol Off Publ Int Assoc Study Lung Cancer. 2010;5:1315–6.

Google Scholar 

Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993;12:1293–316.

CAS  Google Scholar 

de Winter JC, Gosling SD. Potter J Comparing the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients across distributions and sample sizes: a tutorial using simulations and empirical data. Psychol Methods. 2016;21:273–90.

Google Scholar 

Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L. The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:882–93.

Google Scholar 

Alvarado Sánchez JI, Caicedo Ruiz JD, Diaztagle Fernández JJ, Ospina-Tascón GA. Use of pulse pressure variation as predictor of fluid responsiveness in patients ventilated with low tidal volume: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Medi Insights Circ Resp Pulm Med. 2020;14:1179548420901518.

Google Scholar 

Freitas FG, Bafi AT, Nascente AP, Assunção M, Mazza B, Azevedo LC, et al. Predictive value of pulse pressure variation for fluid responsiveness in septic patients using lung-protective ventilation strategies. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110:402–8.

CAS  Google Scholar 

Gattinoni L, Chiumello D, Carlesso E, Valenza F. Bench-to-bedside review: chest wall elastance in acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. Crit Care (London, England). 2004;8:350–5.

Google Scholar 

Lansdorp B, Hofhuizen C, van Lavieren M, van Swieten H, Lemson J, van Putten MJ, et al. Mechanical ventilation-induced intrathoracic pressure distribution and heart-lung interactions*. Crit Care Med. 2014;42:1983–90.

Google Scholar 

Si X, Song X, Lin Q, Nie Y, Zhang G, Xu H, et al. Does end-expiratory occlusion test predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Shock (Augusta, Ga). 2020;54:751–60.

CAS  Google Scholar 

Jun IJ, Chung MH, Kim JE, Lee HS, Son JM, Choi EM. The influence of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing one-lung ventilation. Int J Med Sci. 2021;18:2589–98.

Google Scholar 

Luecke T, Pelosi P. Clinical review: positive end-expiratory pressure and cardiac output. Crit Care (London, England). 2005;9:607–21.

Google Scholar 

Monnet X, Shi R, Teboul JL. Prediction of fluid responsiveness: What’s new? Ann Intensive Care. 2022;12:46.

Google Scholar 

Biais M, de Courson H, Lanchon R, Pereira B, Bardonneau G, Griton M, et al. Mini-fluid challenge of 100 ml of crystalloid predicts fluid responsiveness in the operating room. Anesthesiology. 2017;127:450–6.

CAS  Google Scholar 

Toscani L, Aya HD, Antonakaki D, Bastoni D, Watson X, Arulkumaran N, et al. What is the impact of the fluid challenge technique on diagnosis of fluid responsiveness? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care (London, England). 2017;21:207.

Google Scholar