RESUMO
Background: Fluid boluses are used in hemodynamically unstable patients with presumed hypovolemia, to improve tissue perfusion, in the perioperative period. Now less invasive methods, such as pulse pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV) are increasingly being used. We investigated correlation between carotid and brachial artery velocity time integral (VTI) and compared both with PPV and SVV. Methods: We recruited 27 patients undergoing supra-major abdominal surgeries. When indicated (hypotension or increased lactate), a fluid bolus was given after measuring carotid and brachial artery VTI, PPV, and SVV. The change in SV was noted and patients were categorized as responders if the SV increased by >15%. We performed Bland Altman Agreement and calculated best sensitivity and specificity for the parameters. Results: Patients were found to be fluid responders on 29 instances. The correlation between PPV, SVV, carotid and brachial artery VTI was poor and the limits of agreement between them were wide. The Area under Curve (AUC) for PPV was 0.69, for SVV was 0.63, while those of Carotid and Brachial artery VTI (TAP and flow) were (0.53 and 0.54 for carotid) and (0.51 and 0.56 for brachial) respectively. Conclusion: We found poor agreement and weak correlation between both VTi (TAP and flow) measured at carotid and brachial arteries, suggesting that the readings at brachial vessel cannot be used interchangeably with those at carotid artery. The PPV and SVV were better than these parameters for predicting fluid responsiveness; however, their predictive ability (AUROC), sensitivity and specificity were much lower than previously reported. Further studies in this area are therefore required (CTRI Reg No: CTRI/2017/08/009243). How to cite this article: Joshi M, Dhakane P, Bhosale SJ, Phulambrikar R, Kulkarni AP. Correlation between Carotid and Brachial Artery Velocity Time Integral and Their Comparison to Pulse Pressure Variation and Stroke Volume Variation for Assessing Fluid Responsiveness. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(2):179-184.