ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2021
Respiratory Variations in Peak Peripheral Artery Velocities and Waveforms for Rapid Assessment of Fluid Responsiveness in Traumatic Shock Patients.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Velocity changes in femoral vessel ultrasound with Doppler in Porcine hemorrhagic shock.Heliyon · 2024Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study aimed to assess the correlation between the variability of the end-inspiratory and end-expiratory blood flow waveform and fluid responsiveness (FR) in traumatic shock patients who underwent mechanical ventilation by evaluating peripheral arterial blood flow parameters. MATERIAL AND METHODS A cohort of 60 patients with traumatic shock requiring mechanical ventilation-controlled breathing received ultrasound examinations to assess the velocity of carotid artery (CA), femoral artery (FA) and brachial artery (BA). A rehydration test was performed in which of 250 mL of 0.9% saline was administered within 30 min between the first and second measurement of cardiac output by echocardiography. Then, all patients were divided into 2 groups, a responsive group (FR+) and a non-responsive group (FR-). The velocity of end-inspiratory and end-expiratory peripheral arterial blood flow of all patients was ultrasonically measured, and the variability were measured between end-inspiratory and end-expiratory. RESULTS The changes in the end-inspiratory and end-expiratory carotid artery blood flow velocity waveforms of the FR+ groups were significantly different from those of the FR- group (P<0.001). A statistically significant difference in ΔVmax (CA), ΔVmax (BA), and ΔVmax (FA) between these 2 groups was found (all P<0.001). The ROC curve showed that DVmax (CA) and ΔVmax (BA) were more sensitive values to predict FR compared to ΔVmax (FA). The sensitivity of ΔVmax (CA), ΔVmax (FA), and ΔVmax (BA) was 70.0%, 86.7%, and 93.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The study showed that periodic velocity waveform changes in the end-inspiratory and end-expiratory peripheral arterial blood flow can be used for quick assessment of fluid responsiveness.
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.