1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Carotid Doppler Measurement Variability in Functional Hemodynamic Monitoring: An Analysis of 17,822 Cardiac Cycles

      brief-report

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          OBJECTIVES:

          Carotid Doppler ultrasound is used as a measure of fluid responsiveness, however, assessing change with statistical confidence requires an adequate beat sample size. The coefficient of variation helps quantify the number of cardiac cycles needed to adequately detect change during functional hemodynamic monitoring.

          DESIGN:

          Prospective, observational, human model of hemorrhage and resuscitation.

          SETTING:

          Human physiology laboratory at Mayo Clinic.

          SUBJECTS:

          Healthy volunteers.

          INTERVENTIONS:

          Lower body negative pressure.

          MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:

          We measured the coefficient of variation of the carotid artery velocity time integral and corrected flow time during significant cardiac preload changes. Seventeen-thousand eight-hundred twenty-two cardiac cycles were analyzed. The median coefficient of variation of the carotid velocity time integral was 8.7% at baseline and 11.9% during lowest-tolerated lower body negative pressure stage. These values were 3.6% and 4.6%, respectively, for the corrected flow time.

          CONCLUSIONS:

          The median coefficient of variation values measured in this large dataset indicates that at least 6 cardiac cycles should be averaged before and after an intervention when using the carotid artery as a functional hemodynamic measure.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Prediction of fluid responsiveness: an update

          In patients with acute circulatory failure, the decision to give fluids or not should not be taken lightly. The risk of overzealous fluid administration has been clearly established. Moreover, volume expansion does not always increase cardiac output as one expects. Thus, after the very initial phase and/or if fluid losses are not obvious, predicting fluid responsiveness should be the first step of fluid strategy. For this purpose, the central venous pressure as well as other “static” markers of preload has been used for decades, but they are not reliable. Robust evidence suggests that this traditional use should be abandoned. Over the last 15 years, a number of dynamic tests have been developed. These tests are based on the principle of inducing short-term changes in cardiac preload, using heart–lung interactions, the passive leg raise or by the infusion of small volumes of fluid, and to observe the resulting effect on cardiac output. Pulse pressure and stroke volume variations were first developed, but they are reliable only under strict conditions. The variations in vena caval diameters share many limitations of pulse pressure variations. The passive leg-raising test is now supported by solid evidence and is more frequently used. More recently, the end-expiratory occlusion test has been described, which is easily performed in ventilated patients. Unlike the traditional fluid challenge, these dynamic tests do not lead to fluid overload. The dynamic tests are complementary, and clinicians should choose between them based on the status of the patient and the cardiac output monitoring technique. Several methods and tests are currently available to identify preload responsiveness. All have some limitations, but they are frequently complementary. Along with elements indicating the risk of fluid administration, they should help clinicians to take the decision to administer fluids or not in a reasoned way.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Passive leg raising for predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

            We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies investigating the passive leg raising (PLR)-induced changes in cardiac output (CO) and in arterial pulse pressure (PP) as predictors of fluid responsiveness in adults.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The use of bioreactance and carotid Doppler to determine volume responsiveness and blood flow redistribution following passive leg raising in hemodynamically unstable patients.

              The clinical assessment of intravascular volume status and volume responsiveness is one of the most difficult tasks in critical care medicine. Furthermore, accumulating evidence suggests that both inadequate and overzealous fluid resuscitation are associated with poor outcomes. The objective of this study was to determine the predictive value of passive leg raising (PLR)- induced changes in stroke volume index (SVI) as assessed by bioreactance in predicting volume responsiveness in a heterogenous group of patients in the ICU. A secondary end point was to evaluate the change in carotid Doppler fl ow following the PLR maneuver. During an 8-month period, we collected clinical, hemodynamic, and carotid Doppler data on hemodynamically unstable patients in the ICU who underwent a PLR maneuver as part of our resuscitation protocol. A patient whose SVI increased by . 10% following a fluid challenge was considered a fluid responder. A complete data set was available for 34 patients. Twenty-two patients (65%) had severe sepsis/septic shock, whereas 21 (62%) required vasopressor support and 19 (56%) required mechanical ventilation. Eighteen patients (53%) were volume responders. The PLR maneuver had a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 100% for predicting volume responsiveness (one false negative result). In the 19 patients undergoing mechanical ventilation, the stroke volume variation was 18.0% 5.1% in the responders and 14.8% 3.4% in the nonresponders ( P 5 .15). Carotid blood fl ow increased by 79% 32% after the PLR in the responders compared with 0.1% 14% in the nonresponders ( P , .0001). There was a strong correlation between the percent change in SVI by PLR and the concomitant percent change in carotid blood fl ow ( r 5 0.59, P 5 .0003). Using a threshold increase in carotid Doppler fl ow imaging of 20% for predicting volume responsiveness, there were two false positive results and one false negative result, giving a sensitivity and specificity of 94% and 86%, respectively. We noted a significant increase in the diameter of the common carotid artery in the fluid responders. Monitoring the hemodynamic response to a PLR maneuver using bioreactance provides an accurate method of assessing volume responsiveness in critically ill patients. In addition, the study suggests that changes in carotid blood fl ow following a PLR maneuver may be a useful adjunctive method for determining fluid responsiveness in hemodynamically unstable patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Crit Care Explor
                Crit Care Explor
                CC9
                Critical Care Explorations
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )
                2639-8028
                11 June 2021
                June 2021
                : 3
                : 6
                : e0439
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Health Sciences North Research Institute, Sudbury, ON, Canada.
                [2 ] Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
                [3 ] Department of Emergency Medicine, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME.
                [4 ] Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA.
                [5 ] Flosonics Medical, Toronto, ON, Canada.
                [6 ] Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Sudbury, ON, Canada.
                [7 ] Human Integrative and Environmental Physiology Laboratory, Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
                Author notes
                For information regarding this article, E-mail: jon-emile@ 123456heart-lung.org
                Article
                00008
                10.1097/CCE.0000000000000439
                8202589
                34136821
                bc938415-9013-4f07-bd10-5d6455a7ef60
                Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

                History
                Categories
                Brief Report
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                carotid doppler,corrected flow time,fluid responsiveness,measurement variability,velocity time integral

                Comments

                Comment on this article