Influence of head-of-bed elevation on the measurement of inferior vena cava diameter and collapsibility.
bedside imaging
critical care
inferior vena cava
ultrasonography
Journal
Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU
ISSN: 1097-0096
Titre abrégé: J Clin Ultrasound
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0401663
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
03
06
2019
revised:
02
12
2019
accepted:
19
01
2020
pubmed:
6
2
2020
medline:
21
10
2020
entrez:
5
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter and variation are commonly measured in the supine position to estimate intravascular volume status of critically ill patients. Many scientific societies describe the measurement of IVC diameter in the supine position. However, critically ill patients are rarely placed supine due to concerns for aspiration risk, worsened respiratory mechanics, increases in intracranial pressure, and the time it takes to change patient position. We assessed the influence of head-of-bed (HOB) elevation on IVC measurements. We conducted a prospective observational study of critically ill patients undergoing critical care ultrasound. With HOB at 0°, IVC maximum (IVCmax0°) and minimum (IVCmin0°) diameters were measured. Measurements were then repeated with HOB elevated to 30° and 45°. Collapsibility index (CI), defined as (IVCmax - IVCmin)/IVCmax, was calculated for each HOB elevation. Mean differences were then compared. A convenience sample of 95 patients was studied, of whom 45% were on vasopressors and 44% were spontaneously breathing. The CI did not significantly differ between the three positions. We found a significant difference (P ≤ .0001) between IVCmax at 45° (2.09 cm) and 0° (1.96 cm), IVCmin at 45° (1.75 cm) and 0° (1.59 cm), IVCmax at 45° (2.09 cm) and 30° (1.97 cm), and IVCmin at 45° (1.75 cm) and 30° (1.61 cm). In a population of critically ill patients undergoing goal-directed ultrasound examinations, elevating HOB to 30° did not significantly alter IVC measurements or CI. At 45°, however, IVCmax and IVCmin diameters increased significantly, albeit with no significant change in CI. Performing ultrasound measurements of the IVC with HOB elevated to 30° is unlikely to produce clinically meaningful changes.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
249-253Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Références
Feissel M, Michard F, Faller JP, Teboul JL. The respiratory variation in inferior vena cava diameter as a guide to fluid therapy. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:1834-1837.
Barbier C, Loubières Y, Schmit C, et al. Respiratory changes in inferior vena cava diameter are helpful in predicting fluid responsiveness in ventilated septic patients. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:1740.
Schefold JC, Storm C, Bercker S, et al. Inferior vena cava diameter correlates with invasive hemodynamic measures in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients with sepsis. J Emerg Med. 2010;38:632-637.
Dipti A, Soucy Z, Surana A, et al. Role of inferior vena cava diameter in assessment of volume status: a meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med. 2012;30:1414.e1.
Preau S, Bortolotti P, Colling D, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the inferior vena cava collapsibility to predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients with sepsis and acute circulatory failure. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:e290-e297.
Ilyas A, Ishtiaq W, Assad S, et al. Correlation of IVC diameter and collapsibility index with central venous pressure in the assessment of intravascular volume in critically ill patients. Cureus. 2017;9:e1025.
Corl KA, George NR, Romanoff J, et al. Inferior vena cava collapsibility detects fluid responsiveness among spontaneously breathing critically-ill patients. J Crit Care. 2017;41:130-137.
Long E, Oakley E, Duke T, Babl FE, Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT). Does respiratory variation in inferior vena cava diameter predict fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Shock. 2017;47:550-559.
Orso D, Paoli I, Piani T, Cilenti FL, Cristiani L, Guglielmo N. Accuracy of ultrasonographic measurements of inferior vena cava to determine fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Intensive Care Med. 2018. [Epub ahead of print]
Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-avi V, et al. Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16:233-271.
Lang RM, Bierig M, Devereux RB, et al. Recommendations for chamber quantification: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography's Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Chamber Quantification Writing Group, developed in conjunction with the European Association of Echocardiography, a branch of the European Society of Cardiology. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2005;18:1440.
Levitov A, Frankel HL, Blaivas M, et al. Guidelines for the appropriate use of bedside general and cardiac ultrasonography in the evaluation of critically ill patients. Part II: cardiac ultrasonography. Crit Care Med. 2016;44:1206-1227.
Monnet X, Marik PE, Teboul JL. Prediction of fluid responsiveness: an update. Ann Intensive Care. 2016;6:111.
Zhang Z, Xu X, Ye S, Xu L. Ultrasonographic measurement of the respiratory variation in the inferior vena cava diameter is predictive of fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2014;40:845-853.
Ning JP, Xiao Y, Tao LJ, Cao ZH. Measurement of the inferior vena cava diameter for estimating fluid status in hemodialysis patients. Hunan Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 2000;25:291.
Schmidt GA. POINT: should acute fluid resuscitation be guided primarily by inferior vena cava ultrasound for patients in shock? Yes. Chest. 2017;151:531-532.
Kory P. COUNTERPOINT: should acute fluid resuscitation be guided primarily by inferior vena cava ultrasound for patients in shock? No. Chest. 2017;151:533-536.