Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Withdrawn
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT04614701 |
Other study ID # |
HS24296 |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Withdrawn |
Phase |
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
September 1, 2022 |
Est. completion date |
March 31, 2023 |
Study information
Verified date |
June 2022 |
Source |
St. Boniface Hospital |
Contact |
n/a |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Observational
|
Clinical Trial Summary
Assessment of common carotid artery flow is more easily done and can be taught more broadly
than transthoracic echocardiography, providing a greater number of clinicians a tool to
assess volume responsiveness. These assessments are of great importance to patients with
COVID-19, who often present with hypotension requiring fluids, which must be balanced against
limiting fluid administration to minimize pulmonary edema.
Description:
Optimizing volume status for patients in shock is of critical importance to their outcomes,
both in the provision of helpful, and avoidance of harmful fluid volumes. As such, much work
has been done to develop and assess measures of volume responsiveness; that is, tests that
indicate whether additional fluid administration will increase cardiac output by at least
10%. The passive leg raise (PLR) providing a reversible "auto-bolus" has been demonstrated to
be the most predictive assessment of fluid responsiveness.
Recent studies of changes in carotid artery blood flow suggest it can be used as a surrogate
for changes in cardiac output with moderate reliability. This has been assessed in several
populations with anticipated changes in volume status (e.g. before/after blood donation), and
more recently assessed by Sidor et al. against several preload augmenting maneuvers.
Interestingly, while decreasing preload resulted in a decrease in cardiac output and systolic
carotid blood flow, it did not result in a decrease in corrected carotid flow time, although
a PLR produced an expected increase in all measures.
In our study we seek to validate these results, questioning if there is a lower limit of
corrected carotid flow time that de-couples the relationship between carotid systolic flow
and corrected carotid flow time.