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

Table 5

Fluid responsiveness for included studies.

Study	Number of patients				Cutoff value	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	AUROC (95% CI)
	TP	FP	FN	TN
Barjaktarevic et al. [25]	37	1	17	22	7 mSec	69	96	0.88 (0.80, 0.96)
Chowhan et al. [26]	5	4	2	9	15.8%	71	69	0.69
Zhang et al. [27]	21	6	9	24	11.2 cm/sec	70	80	0.80 (0.69, 0.91)
Abbasi et al. [29]	36	18	14	18	8%	72	50	0.61 (0.48, 0.73)
Abbassi et al. [28] (CBF)	34	26	22	30	>19 ml/min	61	54	0.58 (0.47–0.68)
Abbasi et al. [28] (CFT)	30	25	26	31	6 mSec	54	55	0.59 (0.46–0.65)
Lu et al. [30]	21	2	6	20	13%	78	91	0.91 (0.817, 1.0)
Marik et al. [9]	16	2	1	15	20%	94	88	Not provided
Soliman et al. [31]	11	1	10	8	20%	52	89	0.73 (0.53, 0.93)
Jelic et al. [32]	5	0	1	11	10%	83	100	Not provided
Effat et al. [33] (post PLR)	16	6	4	18	23%	80	75	0.99 (0.98, 1)
Effat et al. [33] (post FC)	14	1	6	23	23%	70	96	0.99 (0.99, 1)
McGregor et al. [34]	9	7	11	6	10%	45	46	Not provided
Girotto et al. [35]	13	4	9	13	8%	90	24	0.68
Ibarra-Estrada et al. [36]	12	5	9	12	14%	87	86	0.88 (0.77, 0.95)
Pace et al. [37] (∆CDPV)	26	4	4	25	>12	82	95	0.91 (0.79, 0.97)
Pace et al. [37] (∆CVTI)	23	1	5	21	>10	89	86	0.92 (0.80, 0.98)
Helmy et al. [38]	25	3	3	19	>17.3	83	100	0.883 (0.78, 0.99)
Jalil et al. [39]	25	0	5	10	>24.6	60	92	0.75 (0.54, 0.96)
D’Arrigo et al. [40]	10	1	8	24	>10.5	53	96.2	0.74 (0.58, 0.91)

∆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, PLR = passive leg raise, FC = fluid challenge, TP = true positive, FP = false positive, FN = false negative, TN = true negative, AUROC = area under receiver operator curve.