Correspondence  |   May 2018
In Reply
Author Notes
  • Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France (M.B.). matthieu.biais@chu-bordeaux.fr
  • (Accepted for publication January 26, 2018.)
    (Accepted for publication January 26, 2018.)×
Article Information
Correspondence
Correspondence   |   May 2018
In Reply
Anesthesiology 5 2018, Vol.128, 1044. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000002142
Anesthesiology 5 2018, Vol.128, 1044. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000002142
We sincerely thank Drs. Vistisen and Scheeren for their insightful comments regarding our recent article.1  The authors pinpointed that calculating predictor and outcome variables from the same baseline may induce theoretical methodologic misinterpretations. Even though we agree with their point of view, we are convinced that it has less impact on our results.
Vistisen and Scheeren claimed that Guinot et al.’s study2  was the only work that addressed the mini-fluid approach with good methodology because it had a new baseline measurement five minutes after each mini-fluid challenge. Interestingly, the results from this study are very close to ours. The area under the receiver operating curve of that study was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.8 to 0.97) and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90 to 0.99) in our study. The best cut-off value was 7% (6% in our study), gray zone ranged between 3 and 8% including 14% of patients (4 to 7% including 19% of patients in our study). This highlights similarity of the results observed whether we use the methodology recommended by Vistisen and Scheeren or ours. The potential “artificial boost of predictive power of the mini-fluid challenge,” induced by our methodology, claimed by Vistisen and Scheeren, is clearly not obvious.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large