Key result
Carotid and brachial artery velocity time integrals showed weak correlation and poor predictive ability for fluid responsiveness (AUROC 0.534 for carotid VTI TAP), performing worse than pulse pressure variation (AUROC 0.691).
Why the study?
Fluid boluses improve tissue perfusion in perioperative hemodynamic instability, but less-invasive methods like PPV and SVV are increasingly used, prompting investigation into whether carotid and brachial artery VTI correlate with each other and compare with PPV and SVV.
Do carotid and brachial artery velocity time integrals correlate with each other and predict fluid responsiveness compared to pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation in adults undergoing major abdominal surgery?
Observational (n=27)
Double-blind
No
Do carotid and brachial artery velocity time integrals correlate with each other and predict fluid responsiveness compared to pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation in adults undergoing major abdominal surgery?
Carotid and brachial artery VTI showed poor agreement with each other, and along with PPV and SVV, demonstrated poor predictive ability for fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery with low tidal volume ventilation.
Carotid and brachial VTI should not yet guide fluid responsiveness in low-tidal-volume abdominal surgery; leaves open validation of better noninvasive predictors.
Background: Fluid boluses are used in hemodynamically unstable patients with presumed hypovolemia, to improve tissue perfusion, in the perioperative period. Now less invasive methods, such as pulse pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV) are increasingly being used. We investigated correlation between carotid and brachial artery velocity time integral (VTI) and compared both with PPV and SVV. Methods: We recruited 27 patients undergoing supra-major abdominal surgeries. When indicated (hypotension or increased lactate), a fluid bolus was given after measuring carotid and brachial artery VTI, PPV, and SVV. The change in SV was noted and patients were categorized as responders if the SV increased by >15%. We performed Bland Altman Agreement and calculated best sensitivity and specificity for the parameters. Results: Patients were found to be fluid responders on 29 instances. The correlation between PPV, SVV, carotid and brachial artery VTI was poor and the limits of agreement between them were wide. The Area under Curve (AUC) for PPV was 0.69, for SVV was 0.63, while those of Carotid and Brachial artery VTI (TAP and flow) were (0.53 and 0.54 for carotid) and (0.51 and 0.56 for brachial) respectively. Conclusion: We found poor agreement and weak correlation between both VTi (TAP and flow) measured at carotid and brachial arteries, suggesting that the readings at brachial vessel cannot be used interchangeably with those at carotid artery. The PPV and SVV were better than these parameters for predicting fluid responsiveness; however, their predictive ability (AUROC), sensitivity and specificity were much lower than previously reported. Further studies in this area are therefore required (CTRI Reg No: CTRI/2017/08/009243). How to cite this article: Joshi M, Dhakane P, Bhosale SJ, Phulambrikar R, Kulkarni AP. Correlation between Carotid and Brachial Artery Velocity Time Integral and Their Comparison to Pulse Pressure Variation and Stroke Volume Variation for Assessing Fluid Responsiveness. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(2):179-184.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dhakane et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Hemodynamic instability with presumed hypovolemia (n=27). Carotid and brachial artery velocity time integral (VTI) vs. Pulse pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV) was evaluated on Predictive ability (AUROC) of Carotid VTI (TAP) for fluid responsiveness (AUROC 0.534, 95% CI 0.365-0.702, p=0.687). Carotid and brachial artery velocity time integrals showed weak correlation and poor predictive ability for fluid responsiveness (AUROC 0.534 for carotid VTI TAP), performing worse than pulse pressure variation (AUROC 0.691).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: