Key result
Stroke volume variation measured by the USCOM device reliably predicted fluid responsiveness in patients with shock, achieving an AUC of 0.797 compared to standard pulse pressure variation.
Why the study?
Dynamic assessment methods predict fluid responsiveness in shock, but the reliability of CO and SVV readings using the non-invasive USCOM 1A device compared to PPV measurements needed evaluation.
Does stroke volume variation measured by a non-invasive ultrasonic cardiac output monitor accurately determine fluid responsiveness compared to invasive pulse pressure variation in mechanically ventilated patients with shock?
Population
92 intubated and mechanically ventilated patients aged 18-95 with shock in the medical intensive care unit
Comparison
CO and SVV using the USCOM 1A device vs PPV from arterial monitoring
Design
Prospective observational study
Authors
Loading...
USCOM SVV agrees substantially with PPV for fluid responsiveness in ventilated shock; supports noninvasive use but leaves open need for outcome trials.
Observational (n=92)
No
Does stroke volume variation measured by a non-invasive ultrasonic cardiac output monitor accurately determine fluid responsiveness compared to invasive pulse pressure variation in mechanically ventilated patients with shock?
Effect estimate: AUC 0.797 (95% CI 0.701-0.894)
p-value: p=0.001
Non-invasive stroke volume variation measured by an ultrasonic cardiac output monitor is a reliable alternative to invasive pulse pressure variation for assessing fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with shock.
Orman et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Shock (n=92). Stroke volume variation (SVV) measured by USCOM 1A device vs. Pulse pressure variation (PPV) from arterial monitoring was evaluated on Reliability of SVV readings with USCOM 1A compared to PPV in determining fluid responsiveness (Area Under the Curve) (AUC 0.797, 95% CI 0.701-0.894, p=0.001). Stroke volume variation measured by the USCOM device reliably predicted fluid responsiveness in patients with shock, achieving an AUC of 0.797 compared to standard pulse pressure variation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: