RESULTS: Fluid responsiveness was defined as cIVCsc > 42% (Airapetian, 2015). In fluid responsive patients (n=16), there was discordance between the two views (paired t- test, p=0.001) in ability to predict fluid responsivity. In fluid non- responsive patients (n=32), there was concordance (p=0.484). 40 of 48 (83%) subjects had a flat ratio value of <1, with the IVC collapsing into a horizontal ellipse. The flat ratio predicted greatest concordance when flat ratio neared 1, and discordance with values greater or less than 1. The transhepatic view was found to have a sensitivity of 0.4, specificity of 0.9, positive predictive value 0.6, and negative predicative value of 0.7 for predicting fluid responsiveness.