Table 7.
Changes in resistivity index in patients who responded to fluid challenge with increased urine output but were hemodynamic non-responders
| Increase in urine output | 0.1 ml/kg/hour | 0.2 ml/kg/hour | 0.3 ml/kg/hour |
|---|---|---|---|
| <10 % increase in MAP | |||
| n/n’ (%) | 19/32 (59 %) | 16/27 (59 %) | 14/25 (56 %) |
| RI | 0.70 (0.67–0.77) | 0.69 (0.63–0.74) | 0.69 (0.62–0.76) |
| RI2 | 0.67 (0.63–0.77) | 0.67 (0.62–0.73) | 0.67 (0.61–0.73) |
| p | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| <10 % increase in MAP or PP | |||
| n/n’ (%) | 12/32 (38 %) | 10/27 (37 %) | 9/25 (36 %) |
| RI | 0.71 (0.67–0.77) | 0.71 (0.65–0.76) | 0.72 (0.64–0.77) |
| RI2 | 0.70 (0.65–0.76) | 0.69 (0.64–0.74) | 0.67 (0.63–0.75) |
| p | 0.182 | 0.09 | 0.08 |
Variables are shown as median and interquartile range and were compared using Wilcoxon test. MAP mean arterial pressure, n/n’ number of patients/total number of patients with increased urine output (as a percentage), PP, pulse pressure, RI resistivity index at baseline, RI 2 resistivity index after fluid challenge