ArticleAnnals of intensive care2018
Carotid and femoral Doppler do not allow the assessment of passive leg raising effects.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Suprasternal ascending or descending aortic velocity peak variability assessment to predict fluid-responsiveness in healthy volunteers: the SADAVA-V pilot prospective study.Journal of ultrasound · 2025Observational
- Correlation between carotid Doppler ultrasound-derived parameters and cardiac output measurements: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Carotid Doppler Imaging as a Marker for Fluid Responsiveness.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Passive leg raising test using the carotid flow velocity-time integral to predict fluid responsiveness.Journal of ultrasound · 2024Article
- Changes in central venous pressure during a fluid challenge have limited value for guiding fluid therapy.Critical care science · 2024Observational
- Questioning the Role of Carotid Artery Ultrasound in Assessing Fluid Responsiveness in Critical Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Critical care research and practice · 2024Review
- The left ventricular outflow tract and carotid artery velocity time integrals.Frontiers in medical technology · 2024Article
- Article
- Evaluating corrected carotid flow time as a non-invasive parameter for trending cardiac output and stroke volume in cardiac surgery patients.Journal of ultrasound · 2023Observational
- Prediction of fluid responsiveness. What's new?Annals of intensive care · 2022Review
- In Response to: Is the Carotid Artery a Window to the Left Ventricle?Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2022Article
- Novel Methods for Predicting Fluid Responsiveness in Critically Ill Patients-A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Efficacy of Left Ventricular Outflow Tract and Carotid Artery Velocity Time Integral as Predictors of Fluid Responsiveness in Patients with Sepsis and Septic Shock.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2021Article
- USER Protocol as a Guide to Resuscitation of the Patient with Septic Shock in the Emergency Department.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2021Article
- Prediction of fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Review
- A novel supplemental maneuver to predict fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients: blood pump-out test performed before renal replacement therapy.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
- Emergency department non-invasive cardiac output study (EDNICO): an accuracy study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe hemodynamic effects of the passive leg raising (PLR) test must be assessed through a direct measurement of cardiac index (CI). We tested whether changes in Doppler common carotid blood flow (CBF) and common femoral artery blood flow (FBF) could detect a positive PLR test (increase in CI ≥ 10%). We also tested whether CBF and FBF changes could track simultaneous changes in CI during PLR and volume expansion. In 51 cases, we measured CI (PiCCO2), CBF and FBF before and during a PLR test (one performed for CBF and another for FBF measurements) and before and after volume expansion, which was performed if PLR was positive.
resultsDue to poor echogenicity or insufficient Doppler signal quality, CBF could be measured in 39 cases and FBF in only 14 cases. A positive PLR response could not be detected by changes in CBF, FBF, carotid nor by femoral peak systolic velocities (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves: 0.58 ± 0.10, 0.57 ± 0.16, 0.56 ± 0.09 and 0.64 ± 10, respectively, all not different from 0.50). The correlations between simultaneous changes in CI and CBF and in CI and FBF during PLR and volume expansion were not significant (p = 0.41 and p = 0.27, respectively).
conclusionDoppler measurements of CBF and of FBF, as well as measurements of their peak velocities, are not reliable to assess cardiac output and its changes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.