I have covered many things resuscitation and fluid responsiveness thus far on this page. Fluid responsiveness has been defined as a patient given either a certain amount of fluid or a passive leg raise to assess how that will increase the cardiac output/index or stroke volume. This post will be about stroke volume variation (SVV) and how it predicts fluid responsiveness. The objective is to not drown our patients with too much fluid. I have covered many things Resuscitation and Fluid Responsiveness category of my page here. There’s also a full blog post on Fluid Resuscitation HERE that I’ve been working on.

What is Stroke Volume Variation (SVV) definition?

Stroke volume variation is another dynamic form of assessing for volume responsiveness in patients who may be in need resuscitation with IV fluids. The major downside to this methodology is that you need some sort of device that uses pulse contour analysis or bioreactance to sort this out. You’ll need an arterial line in the case of pulse contour analysis (except for one particular device to my knowledge). I am quite familiar with one of these devices although I am not going to divulge any further information for sake of possible bias.

What is the Stroke Volume Variation (SVV) Equation?

SVV= (SVmax – SVmin) / SVmean

Fortunately, we don’t have to do it by hand. The machine/device does it for us and we get a pretty number.

What Stroke Volume Variation (SVV) is considered “normal”?

Depending on the literature, a patient who is predicted to be volume responsive will have an SVV>13% in most literature, but some will say >10%. In my practice, I use the former. The normal range of stroke volume variation is <13%. One could interpret the number that if it’s over 13%, they potentially need a 500cc fluid bolus.

Does SVV Predict Fluid Responsiveness?

There was a meta-analysis that looked at 568 patient in 23 different studies using a variety of different devices. The correlation coefficient to fluid responsiveness was 0.718 which means a “highly positive correlation”. The AUC of using SVV for fluid responsiveness is 0.84. 0.8-0.9 is considered “excellent”. It’s not all sunshine and roses, though. I know we’re rusty on our stats.

Limitations of Stroke Volume Variation (SVV):

– needs to be on mechanical ventilation
– no cardiac arrhythmias
– tidal volume needs to be >8cc/kg of ideal body weight
– you need a fancy machine
– most devices need an arterial line
Part of the issue is that clinicians are quick to forget these limitations.

Stroke Volume Variation in Patients on Low Tidal Volumes

Stroke Volume Variation, also known as SVV, is a method to assess fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients.
Criteria to obtain an accurate stroke volume variation include that the patient needs to be on the vent and not spontaneously breathing.
They cannot have any cardiac arrhythmias.
They need sometimes need arterial line and always need a fancy device to measure the stroke volume variation.
If you have all your ducks in a row, using SVV is considered to be excellent with an AUC of 0.84 based on a previous systematic review and meta-analysis.
This is using a threshold of >13% to be fluid responsive.
A caveat that I thought was of utmost importance was that the patients should be set at a tidal volume at, or greater than 8cc/kg.
I recently found a paper by Alvarado et al. that looked at numerous hemodynamic parameters to assess fluid responsiveness.
Using a threshold of 12, the authors found an AUC of 0.9 for patients in patients on low tidal volume.
Does this mean that we can throw out the tidal volume parameter?
What do you think in the comments.

Does SVV work on patients who are spontaneous breathing?

Stroke Volume Variation doesn’t work in patients who are spontaneously breathing. I have seen clinicians who are well respected where they’ve said that it works “to trend” but I am not a fan of shortcuts. The AUC in those patients is 0.53 per the linked Zhang paper.

What devices can help you assess the SVV?

Devices that use pulse contour analysis or bioreactance can obtain stroke volume variation for us. This includes the Vigileo and the Flotrac by Edwards Lifesciences. They are not compensating me for this.

Putting it all together

All in all, it’s another tool in the tool belt. We need as many as we can. I personally would prefer to have this value showing up on a screen over numerous other parameters that require me to be at the bedside on x minute intervals.

If you want to learn about pulse pressure variation, CLICK HERE.

Citations:

Zhang Z, Lu B, Sheng X, Jin N. Accuracy of stroke volume variation in predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Anesth. 2011 Dec;25(6):904-16. doi: 10.1007/s00540-011-1217-1. Epub 2011 Sep 4. PMID: 21892779.
Link to Abstract

Perner A, Faber T. Stroke volume variation does not predict fluid responsiveness in patients with septic shock on pressure support ventilation. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2006 Oct;50(9):1068-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2006.01120.x. Epub 2006 Aug 25. PMID: 16939480.
Link to Article
Link to FULL FREE PDF

Vignon P, Repessé X, Bégot E, Léger J, Jacob C, Bouferrache K, Slama M, Prat G, Vieillard-Baron A. Comparison of Echocardiographic Indices Used to Predict Fluid Responsiveness in Ventilated Patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 Apr 15;195(8):1022-1032. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201604-0844OC. PMID: 27653798.
Link to Article
Link to FULL FREE PDF

Hofer CK, Cannesson M. Monitoring fluid responsiveness. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan. 2011 Jun;49(2):59-65. doi: 10.1016/j.aat.2011.05.001. Epub 2011 Jun 24. PMID: 21729812.
Link to Article
Link to FULL FREE PDF

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 Feb 8;11(1):28. doi: 10.1186/s13613-021-00817-5. PMID: 33555488; PMCID: PMC7870741.
Link to Article
Link to FULL FREE PDF

Other Resources:
Jon-Emile Kenny, MD wrote a great review. Always love his work. SVV.
Alex Yartsev wrote a great review on his page “Deranged Physiology”

How to support my work

My efforts are at no cost to you and I would like to keep it that way. You have to look at ads on this website, listen to them on my podcast and YouTube content. Thanks for bearing with me. You could also support my work by clicking on my Amazon Affiliate links prior to ordering things off of Amazon.

For example, if you want to learn more about Mechanical Ventilation, I recommend starting off with The Ventilator Book by Will Owens. If you click on that link, a window for Amazon will open up and I will earn between a 1-3% commission at no expense to you. The fun thing is that if you order anything else on Amazon, I will earn that amount off of your shopping cart even if you do not purchase the book. Pretty cool, right? In 2020, Amazon Affiliates helped me pay for the hosting of my website, LLC fees, and Netflix.

Disclaimer

Although great care has been taken to ensure that the information in this post is accurate, eddyjoe, LLC shall not be held responsible or in any way liable for the continued accuracy of the information, or for any errors, omissions or inaccuracies, or for any consequences arising therefrom.