Predicting Fluid Responsiveness Using Carotid Ultrasound in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies

BACKGROUND: A noninvasive and accurate method of determining fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients would help to mitigate unnecessary fluid administration. Although carotid ultrasound has been previously studied for this purpose, several studies have recently been published. We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of carotid ultrasound as a tool to predict fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients. METHODS: Studies eligible for review investigated the accuracy of carotid ultrasound parameters in predicting fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients, using sensitivity and specificity as markers of diagnostic accuracy (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO] CRD42022380284). All included studies had to use an independent method of determining cardiac output and exclude spontaneously ventilated patients. Six bibliographic databases and 2 trial registries were searched. Medline, Embase, Emcare, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were searched on November 4, 2022. Clinicaltrials.gov and Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry were searched on February 24, 2023. Results were pooled, meta-analysis was conducted where possible, and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models were used to compare carotid ultrasound parameters. Bias and evidence quality were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) guidelines. RESULTS: Thirteen prospective clinical studies were included (n = 648 patients), representing 677 deliveries of volume expansion, with 378 episodes of fluid responsiveness (58.3%). A meta-analysis of change in carotid Doppler peak velocity (∆CDPV) yielded a sensitivity of 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74–0.84) and a specificity of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.76–0.90). Risk of bias relating to recruitment methodology, the independence of index testing to reference standards and exclusionary clinical criteria were evaluated. Overall quality of evidence was low. Study design heterogeneity, including a lack of clear parameter cutoffs, limited the generalizability of our results. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, we found that existing literature supports the ability of carotid ultrasound to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated adults. ∆CDPV may be an accurate carotid parameter in certain contexts. Further high-quality studies with more homogenous designs are needed to further validate this technology.