Why the study?
Carotid peak velocity (CPV) has potential to predict volume responsiveness, but its performance compared with pulse pressure variation (PPV) following a tidal volume challenge was unknown.
Does the change in carotid peak velocity variation following a tidal volume challenge predict volume responsiveness as well as the change in pulse pressure variation in patients with haemodynamic instability?
Does the change in carotid peak velocity variation following a tidal volume challenge predict volume responsiveness as well as the change in pulse pressure variation in patients with haemodynamic instability?
The change in carotid peak velocity variation following a tidal volume challenge is a comparable predictor of fluid responsiveness to pulse pressure variation in hemodynamically unstable patients.
May support CPV variation post-TV challenge as PPV alternative in unstable patients; hypothesis-generating, needs prospective validation before adoption.
Background and Aims: Tidal volume (TV) challenge was shown to improve the reliability of pulse pressure variation (PPV) in predicting volume responsiveness. Carotid peak velocity (CPV) has similar potential to predict volume responsiveness. This study compared the performance of CPV and PPV in predicting volume responsiveness following a TV challenge. Methodology: In patients with haemodynamic instability, baseline CPV and PPV were measured at 6 ml/kg (CPV6 and PPV6) and 8 ml/kg TV (CPV8 and PPV8), and the changes (∆CPV (6–8) and ∆PPV (6–8)) were recorded. The TV was then reduced to 6 ml/kg. After fluid bolus (6 ml/kg), change in cardiac output (CO) measured with trans thoracic echocardiogram by more than 15% was considered volume response. Results: Among the 42 patients studied, the mean PPV6 and CPV 6 were 18.94 ± 5.61 and 76.40 ± 13, respectively, whereas mean PPV8 and CPV8 were 23 ± 6.06 and 79.86 ± 13.5. Mean ∆CPV (6–8) and ∆PPV (6–8) were 4.15 ± 1.4 and 3.61 ± 1.6. The absolute change in CPV and PPV after TV challenge predicted fluid responsiveness with AUROC (with 95% CIs) of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.55–0.88), and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.6–0.95), respectively. Conclusions: The prediction of volume responsiveness by change in CPV variation is similar to change in PPV following TV challenge.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Madhisetti et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: