Table 1.
Studies characteristics
| Year | No. of patients | Setting | PEEP (cmH2O) | Tidal volume (mL/kg) | Respiratory system compliance (mL/cmH2O) | HD monitoring #1 | HD monitoring #2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monnet et al. [8] | 2009 | 34 | ICU | 8 ± 3 | 6.8 ± 1.1 | NA | Calibrated PC | PP |
| Monnet et al. [18] | 2012 | 39 | ICU | 7 ± 3 | 7.9 ± 2.5 | 36 ± 16 | Calibrated PC | NA |
| Monnet et al. [11] | 2012 | 54 | ICU | 7 ± 3 | 7.9 ± 1.1 | 33 ± 6 | Calibrated PC | NA |
| Silva et al. [19] | 2013 | 34 | ICU | 5 ± 0 vs. 14 ± 0 | 6.8 ± 0.2 | 27 ± 3 vs. 31 ± 1 | Calibrated PC | NA |
| Guinot et al. [12] | 2014 | 42 | OR | 4 ± 2 | 8.2 ± 0.8 | NA | ODM | EtCO2 |
| Biais et al. [13] | 2017 | 41 | OR | 5 ± 0 | 6.9 ± 0.6 | 40 ± 10 | Uncalibrated PC | NA |
| Myatra et al. [14] | 2017 | 30 | ICU | 9 ± 3 | 6.0 ± 0.1 vs. 8.0 ± 0.0 | 25 ± 4 vs. 32 ± 4 | Calibrated PC | NA |
| Yonis et al. [15] | 2017 | 33 | ICU | 8 ± 1 | 6.0 ± 0.1 | 30 ± 5 | Calibrated PC | NA |
| Jozwiak et al. [16] | 2017 | 30 | ICU | 10 ± 4 | 6.2 ± 0.2 | 35 ± 3 | TTE | Calibrated PC |
| Georges et al. [17] | 2018 | 50 | ICU | 6 ± 2 | 6.9 ± 0.7 | 50 ± 17 | TTE | NA |
| Dépret et al. [20] | 2019 | 28 | ICU | 12 ± 3 | 5.8 ± 0.6 | 39 ± 10 | ODM | Calibrated PC |
| Messina et al. [21] | 2019 | 40 | OR | 5 ± 0 | 6.0 ± 0.0 vs. 8.0 ± 0.0 | 65 ± 4 vs. 83 ± 4 | Uncalibrated PC | NA |
| Xu et al. [22] | 2019 | 75 | OR | 5 ± 0 | 8 ± 0.1 | NA | TOE | NA |
EtCO2 end-tidal carbon dioxide, HD haemodynamic, ICU intensive care unit, NA not available, ODM oesophageal Doppler monitoring, OR operating room, PC pulse contour, PEEP positive end-expiratory pressure, TOE trans-oesophageal echocardiography, TTE trans-thoracic echocardiography