Key result
Carotid Doppler ultrasound indices, with only ΔVpeak showing predictive power (AUC 0.671), were not dependable substitutes for invasive methods to assess fluid responsiveness in CABG patients.
Why the study?
Do carotid Doppler-derived indices accurately predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients undergoing CABG compared to invasive methods?
Observational
Do carotid Doppler-derived indices accurately predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients undergoing CABG compared to invasive methods?
Effect estimate: AUC 0.671
Carotid Doppler ultrasound indices may not be reliable substitutes for invasive methods in assessing fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated CABG patients.
The authors conducted a prospective, observational study to evaluate the correlation of fluid responsiveness with commonly used carotid Doppler-derived indices like carotid artery blood flow, carotid corrected flow time, respirophasic variation in carotid artery blood flow peak velocity in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. They claimed that altough only ΔVpeak demonstrated some predictive power with areas under receiver operating characteristic of 0.671, carotid Doppler ultrasound indices were found to be not dependable as a substitute for invasive methods to assess fluid responsiveness. The presence of studies advocating quite different sentiments in the literature regarding feasibility and reliability show that there is a long way gone and a long way to go.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ali Baran Budak (2022) conducted an observational in Mechanically ventilated patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Carotid Doppler-derived indices vs. Invasive methods was evaluated on Fluid responsiveness (AUC 0.671). Carotid Doppler ultrasound indices, with only ΔVpeak showing predictive power (AUC 0.671), were not dependable substitutes for invasive methods to assess fluid responsiveness in CABG patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: