ArticleShock (Augusta, Ga.)2025
THE ROLE OF ULTRASONIC CARDIAC OUTPUT MONITOR IN EVALUATING STROKE VOLUME VARIATION TO DETERMINE FLUID RESPONSIVENESS IN PATIENTS WITH SHOCK.
Article in Shock (Augusta, Ga.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractBackground: Dynamic assessment of cardiac output (CO) with passive leg raise (PLR), stroke volume variation (SVV), and pulse pressure variation (PPV) offer effective and safe methods to predict fluid responsiveness in patients with shock. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of CO and SVV readings with the ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM) 1A device compared to PPV measurements in determining fluid responsiveness of patients in shock. Materials and Method: Intubated and mechanically ventilated patients aged 18-95 with shock admitted to the medical intensive care unit from June 2019 to December 2020 were included in the study. Fluid responsiveness was assessed using PPV from arterial monitoring and CO/SVV using the USCOM 1A device. CO, PPV, and SVV data were recorded before and after PLR. Results: Out of 145 shock patients, 92 were included. Before the PLR maneuver, 67 patients had PPV values above 12% and were stated as fluid responsive. The SVV index measured by the USCOM device demonstrated good sensitivity (85%) and specificity (96%) in identifying fluid responsiveness. The agreement with PPV was substantial (Cronbach's alpha reliability: 0.718 [ P < 0.001]), and the index was internally consistent (kappa agreement: 0.707 [ P < 0.001]). The SVV index moderately correlated with PPV (R: 0.588 [ P = 0.001]). Regarding fluid responsiveness determined by PPV, the AUC value of SVV was 0.797 (0.701-0.894) (p: 0.001). Conclusion: SVV measured by the USCOM device is a reliable and practical tool for hemodynamic assessment in clinical practice, particularly when invasive methods are unsuitable.
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.