Skip to main content

Table 2 Modalities of the end-expiratory occlusion test and of fluid

From: The end-expiratory occlusion test for detecting preload responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

 

Year

No. of patients

Responders

Non-responders

FC duration (min)

FC volume (mL)

Reference defining preload responsiveness

CO increase defining responsiveness (%)

EEXPO duration (s)

Monnet et al. [8]

2009

34

23

11

10

500

Saline infusion

15

15

Monnet et al. [18]

2012

39

17

22

30

500

Saline infusion

15

15

Monnet et al. [11]

2012

54

30

24

20

500

Saline infusion

15

15

Silva et al. [19]

2013

34

13

21

a

a

PLR

10

15

Guinot et al. [12]

2014

42

28

14

10

500

Ringer/ringer lactate infusion

15

15

Biais et al. [13]

2017

41

20

21

10

250

Saline infusion

10

30

Myatra et al. [14]

2017

30

16

14

10

7 mL/kg

Saline infusion

15

15

Yonis et al. [15]

2017

33

15

18

15

500

Saline infusion

15

15

Jozwiak et al. [16]

2017

30

15

15

10

500

Saline infusion

15

15

Georges et al. [17]

2018

50

28

22

15

500

Saline infusion

15

12

Dépret et al. [20]

2019

28

14

14

10

500

Saline infusion

15

15

Messina et al. [21]

2019

40

21

19

10

250

Ringer lactate infusion

10

30

Xu et al. [22]

2019

75

36

39

10

6 mL/kg

Saline infusion

15

20

  1. CO cardiac output, EEXPO end-expiratory occlusion, FC fluid challenge, PLR passive leg raising
  2. aIn this study, a fluid challenge was performed in some patients, but preload responsiveness was defined according to the result of the PLR test, which was performed in all the patients