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
Authors' conclusion
Both the ΔFTc and ΔSVV reliably assessed fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing general anesthesia and mechanical ventilation.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery under GA and mechanical ventilation47 (54.0%) fluid responders
- Participants
- 91 patients
- Comparison
- Ultrasound ΔFTc vs invasive ΔSVV for predicting fluid responsiveness
- Outcome
- Fluid responsiveness (increase in stroke volume ≥ 10% after fluid challenge)
Performance
As reported in the abstract
Diagnostic accuracy for fluid responsiveness
| Test or model | AUC | Optimal cutoff | Sensitivity | Specificity | Gray zone |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ΔFTc | 0.85 (95% CI 0.77-0.92; P < 0.05) | 7.03 ms | 91.5% | 69.8% | 7 ms to 12 ms, 27 patients |
| ΔSVV | 0.84 (95% CI 0.75-0.93; P < 0.05) | 2.85% | 95.6% | 72.6% | 1% to 3%, 41 patients |
AUC
ΔFTc0.85 (95% CI 0.77-0.92; P < 0.05)
ΔSVV0.84 (95% CI 0.75-0.93; P < 0.05)
Optimal cutoff
ΔFTc7.03 ms
ΔSVV2.85%
Sensitivity
ΔFTc91.5%
ΔSVV95.6%
Specificity
ΔFTc69.8%
ΔSVV72.6%
Gray zone
ΔFTc7 ms to 12 ms, 27 patients
ΔSVV1% to 3%, 41 patients
Further findings
| Outcome | Responders | Non-responders |
|---|---|---|
| ΔFTc, responders vs non-responders | 14.5 ± 8.3 ms | 5.7 ± 4.9 ms |
| ΔSVV, responders vs non-responders | 3.3 ± 1.4 % | 1.7 ± 0.7 % |
Original publication
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. J Clin Monit Comput. Published 29 October 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →