↓ Skip to main content

Carotid and femoral Doppler do not allow the assessment of passive leg raising effects

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Carotid and femoral Doppler do not allow the assessment of passive leg raising effects
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13613-018-0413-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valentina Girotto, Jean-Louis Teboul, Alexandra Beurton, Laura Galarza, Thierry Guedj, Christian Richard, Xavier Monnet

Abstract

The hemodynamic effects of the passive leg raising (PLR) test must be assessed through a direct measurement of cardiac index (CI). We tested whether changes in Doppler common carotid blood flow (CBF) and common femoral artery blood flow (FBF) could detect a positive PLR test (increase in CI ≥ 10%). We also tested whether CBF and FBF changes could track simultaneous changes in CI during PLR and volume expansion. In 51 cases, we measured CI (PiCCO2), CBF and FBF before and during a PLR test (one performed for CBF and another for FBF measurements) and before and after volume expansion, which was performed if PLR was positive. Due to poor echogenicity or insufficient Doppler signal quality, CBF could be measured in 39 cases and FBF in only 14 cases. A positive PLR response could not be detected by changes in CBF, FBF, carotid nor by femoral peak systolic velocities (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves: 0.58 ± 0.10, 0.57 ± 0.16, 0.56 ± 0.09 and 0.64 ± 10, respectively, all not different from 0.50). The correlations between simultaneous changes in CI and CBF and in CI and FBF during PLR and volume expansion were not significant (p = 0.41 and p = 0.27, respectively). Doppler measurements of CBF and of FBF, as well as measurements of their peak velocities, are not reliable to assess cardiac output and its changes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 19%
Other 7 19%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Sports and Recreations 3 8%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 6 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 September 2019.
All research outputs
#18,345,259
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#908
of 1,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,329
of 332,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#25
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.