ArticleScientific reports2024
Prediction of fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients with hemodynamic stability: a prospective repeated-measures study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Why Post-Cardiac Arrest Interventions Often Fail: Therapeutic Amenability and the Rapidly Closing Window of Neuroprotection.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- The time course of fluid responsiveness.Annals of intensive care · 2026Review
- Suprasternal ascending or descending aortic velocity peak variability assessment to predict fluid-responsiveness in healthy volunteers: the SADAVA-V pilot prospective study.Journal of ultrasound · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evaluating fluid responsiveness with dynamic parameters is recommended for fluid management. However, in hemodynamically stable patients who are breathing spontaneously, accurately measuring stroke volume variation via echocardiography and passive leg raising is challenging due to subtle SV changes. This study aimed to identify normal SV changes in healthy volunteers and evaluate the precision of hemodynamic parameters in screening mild hypovolemia in patients. This prospective, repeated-measures, cross-sectional study screened 269 subjects via echocardiography. Initially, 45 healthy volunteers underwent a fluid challenge test, the outcomes of which served as criteria to screen 215 ICU patients. Among these patients, 53 underwent additional fluid challenge testing. Hemodynamic parameters, including medians of maximum velocity time integrals (VTImaxs), peak velocity of VTImax (PV), internal jugular vein diameters (IJVD), and area (IJVA) were repeatedly measured first at a 60° upper body elevation (UBE), second in a supine position, third at UBE, fourth in a supine position, and lastly in a supine position after fluid loading. The hemodynamic responses to the position changes were compared between 83 fluid non-responders and 15 fluid responders. Fluid responsiveness was defined as fluid-induced medians' change of VTImaxs (fluid-induced median VTImax change) ≥ 10%. None of the healthy volunteers showed the mean value of repeatedly measured medians of VTImaxs ≥ 7%, following either UBE position (UBE-induced median VTImax change) or fluid loading (fluid-induced median VTImax change). UBE-induced median VTImax and PV changes were significantly correlated with fluid responsiveness (p < 0.001, AUC 0.959; p < 0.001, AUC 0.804). The significant correlations were demonstrated via multivariable analysis using binary logistic regression (p = 0.001, OR 90.1) and the correlation coefficient (R
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.