Questioning the Role of Carotid Artery Ultrasound in Assessing Fluid Responsiveness in Critical Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Table 4

Diagnostic accuracy of carotid ultrasound measures to predict fluid responsiveness.

Analysis	Source	Positive/total analysed	Sensitivity (95% CI)	Specificity (95% CI)	Positive likelihood ratio (95% CI)	Negative likelihood ratio (95% CI)
∆CDPV	Zhang et al. [27], Abbasi et al. [29], Lu et al. [30], Soliman et al. [31], Ibarra-Estrada et al. [36] Abbasi et al. [29], Pace et al. [37], D’Arrigo et al. [40]	148/297	0.72 (0.63, 0.80)	0.87 (0.73, 0.94)	5.48 (2.52, 11.9)	0.31 (0.23, 0.43)
CBF	Abbasi et al. [28], Effat et al. PLR [33], Effat et al. IVF [33], McGregor et al. [34], Helmy et al. [38]	98/173	0.70 (0.56, 0.80)	0.80 (0.50, 0.94)	2.00 (1.56, 2.56)	0.45 (0.34, 0.60)
∆CAVTI	Chowhan et al. [26], Marik et al. [9], Girotto et al. [35], Pace et al. [37]	65/112	0.89 (0.80, 0.94)	0.71 (0.39, 0.90)	5.14 (2.78, 10.61)	0.30 (0.23, 0.42)
CFT	Barjaktarevic et al. [25], Jelic et al. [32], Jalil et al. [39], Abassi et al. [28]	78/153	0.65 (0.52, 0.76)	0.92 (0.61, 0.99)	1.90 (1.48, 2.41)	0.42 (0.29, 0.60)

∆CDPV = change in carotid Doppler peak velocity, CBF = carotid blood flow, ∆CAVTI = change in carotid artery velocity time integral, CFT = carotid flow time, CI = confidence interval.