Observational studyJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2026
Comparison of the change in carotid corrected flow time and stroke volume variation for assessing volume responsiveness in general anesthesia patients: a prospective, observational study.
Observational study in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundAccurately identifying surgical patients who will have an increase in stroke volume following fluid administration remains challenging when utilizing noninvasive bedside methods. This study aims to compare the value of using ultrasound to measure changes in corrected carotid artery flow time (ΔFTc) with that of using invasive measurements of stroke volume variation (ΔSVV) for assessing volume responsiveness in patients under general anesthesia and mechanical ventilation.
methodsA total of 91 patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery under general anesthesia were enrolled in this prospective observational study. Under general anesthesia and mechanical ventilation, the ΔFTc was measured using noninvasive bedside ultrasound, and the ΔSVV was measured using invasive hemodynamic monitoring, both before and after fluid administration. Fluid responders were defined as an increase in stroke volume of ≥ 10% after the fluid challenge.
resultsA total of 47 (54.0%) patients were fluid responders. The ΔFTc was 14.5 ± 8.3 ms for responders and 5.7 ± 4.9 ms for non-responders, while the ΔSVV was 3.3 ± 1.4% for responders and 1.7 ± 0.7% for non-responders. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for ΔFTc and ΔSVV were 0.85 (95% CI 0.77-0.92; P < 0.05) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.75-0.93; P < 0.05), respectively. The optimal cutoff values were 7.03 ms for ΔFTc (sensitivity 91.5%, specificity 69.8%) and 2.85% for ΔSVV (sensitivity 95.6%, specificity 72.6%). A narrower gray zone for ΔFTc, ranging from 7 ms to 12 ms and covering 27 patients, was observed compared with that for ΔSVV, which ranged from 1% to 3% and covered 41 patients.
conclusionsBoth the ΔFTc and ΔSVV reliably assessed fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing general anesthesia and mechanical ventilation. Noninvasive bedside ultrasound measurement of ΔFTc can serve as an accurate assessment parameter, reflecting the presence of volume responsiveness following rapid fluid administration and showing greater clinical applicability.
trial registrationwww.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2500101114); registered 21 April 2025.
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.