Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Carotid Doppler Ultrasonography for Hemodynamic Assessment in Critically Ill Children

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Cardiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An accurate assessment of cardiovascular performance is essential to predict and evaluate hemodynamic response to interventions. The objective of this prospective study was to assess whether point-of-care ultrasonography of the common carotid artery (CCA) can estimate the stroke volume (SV) and cardiac index (Ci) of critically ill children. Participants underwent Doppler ultrasonography of the left CCA and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). Variables measured by TTE were SV and Ci. Carotid blood flow (CBF) was calculated based on both systolic velocity–time integral (CBF(s)) and total velocity–time integral (CBF(t)). Carotid corrected flow time(CFT)was also determined. A total of 50 children were enrolled. The median age and weight of participants were 36.0 months and 14.2 kg, respectively. Both CBF(s) and CBF(t) correlated very strongly with SV (ρ = 0.98 and 0.97, respectively) and Ci (ρ = 0.96 and 0.92, respectively). Agreement analysis showed low biases and clinically acceptable percentage errors between variables measured by TTE (SV and Ci) and those estimated by Doppler ultrasonography. Linear regression analysis revealed that the Ci of mechanically ventilated children can be estimated by the following equation: \({\text{Ci}} = 0.703 + \frac{{6.479\, \times \,{\text{CBF}}_{\left( s \right)}\, \times\, {\text{heart rate}}}}{{\text{body surface area}}}\). CFT did not significantly correlate with SV or Ci (ρ = 0.27 and 0.05, respectively). Doppler ultrasonography of the left CCA is able to estimate the SV and Ci of critically ill children. Therefore, the CDU may be considered as an alternative for estimating Ci in critically ill children when TTE is not feasible or available.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

Code Availability

N/A.

Abbreviations

CDU:

Carotid Doppler ultrasonography

CCA:

Common carotid artery

CI:

Cardiac index

CI:

Confidence interval

CBF( s ) :

Systolic carotid blood flow

CBF( t ) :

Total carotid blood flow

CBFi( s ) :

Systolic carotid blood flow index

CBFi( t ) :

Total carotid blood flow index

CFT:

Carotid-corrected flow time

CO:

Cardiac output

CoV:

Coefficient of variation

Da:

Aortic diameter

Dc:

Carotid diameter

eCi:

Estimated cardiac index

eSV:

Estimated stroke volume

IQR:

Interquartile range

PICU:

Pediatric intensive care unit

POCUS:

Point-of-care ultrasonography

SD:

Standard deviation

SV:

Stroke volume

SVRI:

Systemic vascular resistance index

TTE:

Transthoracic Echocardiography

VTIa:

Aortic velocity–time integral

VTI( s ) :

Systolic velocity–time integral

VTI( t ) :

Total velocity–time integral

References

  1. Alobaidi R, Morgan C, Basu RK et al (2018) Association between fluid balance and outcomes in critically ill children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr 172:257–268. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.4540

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Razavi A, Newth CJL, Khemani RG et al (2017) Cardiac output and systemic vascular resistance: clinical assessment compared with a noninvasive objective measurement in children with shock. J Crit Care 39:6–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.12.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gan H, Cannesson M, Chandler JR et al (2013) Predicting fluid responsiveness in children: a systematic review. Anesth Analg 117:1380–1392. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182a9557e

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ramsingh D, Alexander B, Cannesson M (2013) Clinical review: does it matter which hemodynamic monitoring system is used? Crit Care 17:208. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc11814

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. van Wijk JJ, Weber F, Stolker RJ et al (2020) Current state of noninvasive, continuous monitoring modalities in pediatric anesthesiology. Curr Opin Anesthesiol 33:781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Suehiro K, Joosten A, Murphy LS-L et al (2016) Accuracy and precision of minimally-invasive cardiac output monitoring in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Monit Comput 30:603–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-015-9757-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. De Souza TH, Brandão MB, Nadal JAH et al (2018) Ultrasound guidance for pediatric central venous catheterization: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics 142:e20181719. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-1719

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/096228029900800204

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chew MS, Poelaert J (2003) Accuracy and repeatability of pediatric cardiac output measurement using Doppler: 20-year review of the literature. Intensive Care Med 29:1889–1894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-003-1967-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bonett DG, Wright TA (2000) Sample size requirements for estimating pearson, kendall and spearman correlations. Psychometrika 65:23–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gaspar HA, Morhy SS, Lianza AC et al (2014) Focused cardiac ultrasound: a training course for pediatric intensivists and emergency physicians. BMC Med Educ 14:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-25

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Peng Q-Y, Zhang L-N, Ai M-L et al (2017) Common carotid artery sonography versus transthoracic echocardiography for cardiac output measurements in intensive care unit patients. J Ultrasound Med 36:1793–1799. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sidor M, Premachandra L, Hanna B et al (2018) Carotid flow as a surrogate for cardiac output measurement in hemodynamically stable participants. J Intensive Care Med. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885066618775694

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Roehrig C, Govier M, Robinson J et al (2017) Carotid Doppler flowmetry correlates poorly with thermodilution cardiac output following cardiac surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 61:31–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.12822

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gassner M, Killu K, Bauman Z et al (2015) Feasibility of common carotid artery point of care ultrasound in cardiac output measurements compared to invasive methods. J Ultrasound 18:127–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-014-0139-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ma IWY, Caplin JD, Azad A et al (2017) Correlation of carotid blood flow and corrected carotid flow time with invasive cardiac output measurements. Crit Ultrasound J 9:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-017-0065-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Nusmeier A, van der Hoeven JG, Lemson J (2010) Cardiac output monitoring in pediatric patients. Expert Rev Med Devices 7:503–517. https://doi.org/10.1586/erd.10.19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Beier L, Davis J, Esener D et al (2020) Carotid ultrasound to predict fluid responsiveness. J Ultrasound Med 39:1965–1976. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.15301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim D-H, Shin S, Kim N et al (2018) Carotid ultrasound measurements for assessing fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients: corrected flow time and respirophasic variation in blood flow peak velocity. Br J Anaesth 121:541–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2017.12.047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Barjaktarevic I, Toppen WE, Hu S et al (2018) Ultrasound assessment of the change in carotid corrected flow time in fluid responsiveness in undifferentiated shock. Crit Care Med 46:e1040

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Carolina Grotta Ramos Telio for her review of the article. We also thank the nursing, technical staff, and the pediatric intensive care residents.

Funding

No external funding for this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

AJR and LLdS: responsible for data collection, drafting and critical revision of the manuscript. RJNN and MBB: responsible for critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. THdS: responsible for the study concept and design, acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tiago H. de Souza.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this study to disclose.

Ethical Approval

The study was approved by the local institutional review board (UNICAMP’s Research and Ethics Committee, Approval Number 31665420.9.0000.5404).

Consent to Participate

Written informed consent was obtained from the participants’ legal guardian.

Consent for Publication

N/A.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rubio, A.J., de Souza, L.L., Nogueira, R.J.N. et al. Carotid Doppler Ultrasonography for Hemodynamic Assessment in Critically Ill Children. Pediatr Cardiol 43, 382–390 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-021-02732-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-021-02732-9

Keywords

Navigation