Can @entity64 volume variation be an alternative to central venous pressure in XXXX undergoing kidney transplantation?

@entity1 @entity6355 @entity64 @entity454
BACKGROUND: @entity64 volume variation ( @entity6355 ) is known to be a simple and less invasive hemodynamic parameter for evaluating fluid responsiveness and preload status. Central venous pressure (CVP) has been targeted to achieve an adequate level for improving the graft perfusion and long-term graft function in kidney transplantation (KT) recipients, despite the various potential complications. The aim of this study was to investigate whether @entity6355 could substitute for CVP in guiding intravascular volume management during KT. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated 635 @entity1 who underwent KT because of @entity454 . Hemodynamic variables including CVP and @entity6355 were obtained before skin incision (T1), 5 minutes after iliac vein clamping (T2), and 10 minutes after renal graft reperfusion (T3). The ability of @entity6355 to predict CVP level was investigated with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: CVPs were 6.0    2.6, 8.6    2.7, and 9.3    2.5 mm Hg, and SVVs were 6.9    3.0, 5.0    2.1, and 4.3    2.1% at T1, T2, and T3, respectively. ROC analysis showed that the discriminative power of @entity6355 was fairly good with an area under the ROC curve of 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.72) for a CVP of 8 mm Hg, and that an optimal cutoff value of @entity6355 was 6% as an alternative to CVP of 8 mm Hg during KT. CONCLUSIONS: @entity6355 may replace CVP in the volume management of @entity1 who have undergone KT. Our results suggest that @entity6355 can guide volume management to improve graft perfusion at critical time points during KT.
