Measurement site of inferior vena cava diameter affects the accuracy with which fluid responsiveness can be predicted in spontaneously breathing patients: a post hoc analysis of two prospective cohorts.
Collapsibility index
Echocardiography
Fluid responsiveness
Fluids
Hemodynamic
Inferior vena cava
Sepsis
Severe infection
Spontaneous breathing
Ultrasound
Journal
Annals of intensive care
ISSN: 2110-5820
Titre abrégé: Ann Intensive Care
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101562873
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Dec 2020
11 Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
17
07
2020
accepted:
01
12
2020
entrez:
11
12
2020
pubmed:
12
12
2020
medline:
12
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The collapsibility index of the inferior vena cava (cIVC) has potential for predicting fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients, but a standardized approach for measuring the inferior vena cava diameter has yet to be established. The aim was to test the accuracy of different measurement sites of inferior vena cava diameter to predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients with sepsis-related circulatory failure and examine the influence of a standardized breathing manoeuvre. Among the 81 patients included in the study, the median Simplified Acute Physiologic Score II was 34 (24; 42). Sepsis was of pulmonary origin in 49 patients (60%). Median volume expansion during the 24 h prior to study inclusion was 1000 mL (0; 2000). Patients were not severely ill: none were intubated, only 20% were on vasopressors, and all were apparently able to perform a standardized breathing exercise. Forty-one (51%) patients were responders to volume expansion (i.e. a ≥ 10% stroke volume index increase). The cIVC was calculated during non-standardized (cIVC-ns) and standardized breathing (cIVC-st) conditions. The accuracy with which both cIVC-ns and cIVC-st predicted fluid responsiveness differed significantly by measurement site (interaction p < 0.001 and < 0.0001, respectively). Measuring inferior vena cava diameters 4 cm caudal to the right atrium predicted fluid responsiveness with the best accuracy. At this site, a standardized breathing manoeuvre also significantly improved predictive power: areas under ROC curves [mean and (95% CI)] for cIVC-ns = 0.85 [0.78-0.94] versus cIVC-st = 0.98 [0.97-1.0], p < 0.001. When cIVC-ns is superior or equal to 33%, fluid responsiveness is predicted with a sensitivity of 66% and a specificity of 92%. When cIVC-st is superior or equal to 44%, fluid responsiveness is predicted with a sensitivity of 93% and a specificity of 98%. The accuracy with which cIVC measurements predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients depends on both the measurement site of inferior vena cava diameters and the breathing regime. Measuring inferior vena cava diameters during a standardized inhalation manoeuvre at 4 cm caudal to the right atrium seems to be the method by which to obtain cIVC measurements best-able to predict patients' response to volume expansion.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The collapsibility index of the inferior vena cava (cIVC) has potential for predicting fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients, but a standardized approach for measuring the inferior vena cava diameter has yet to be established. The aim was to test the accuracy of different measurement sites of inferior vena cava diameter to predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients with sepsis-related circulatory failure and examine the influence of a standardized breathing manoeuvre.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Among the 81 patients included in the study, the median Simplified Acute Physiologic Score II was 34 (24; 42). Sepsis was of pulmonary origin in 49 patients (60%). Median volume expansion during the 24 h prior to study inclusion was 1000 mL (0; 2000). Patients were not severely ill: none were intubated, only 20% were on vasopressors, and all were apparently able to perform a standardized breathing exercise. Forty-one (51%) patients were responders to volume expansion (i.e. a ≥ 10% stroke volume index increase). The cIVC was calculated during non-standardized (cIVC-ns) and standardized breathing (cIVC-st) conditions. The accuracy with which both cIVC-ns and cIVC-st predicted fluid responsiveness differed significantly by measurement site (interaction p < 0.001 and < 0.0001, respectively). Measuring inferior vena cava diameters 4 cm caudal to the right atrium predicted fluid responsiveness with the best accuracy. At this site, a standardized breathing manoeuvre also significantly improved predictive power: areas under ROC curves [mean and (95% CI)] for cIVC-ns = 0.85 [0.78-0.94] versus cIVC-st = 0.98 [0.97-1.0], p < 0.001. When cIVC-ns is superior or equal to 33%, fluid responsiveness is predicted with a sensitivity of 66% and a specificity of 92%. When cIVC-st is superior or equal to 44%, fluid responsiveness is predicted with a sensitivity of 93% and a specificity of 98%.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The accuracy with which cIVC measurements predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients depends on both the measurement site of inferior vena cava diameters and the breathing regime. Measuring inferior vena cava diameters during a standardized inhalation manoeuvre at 4 cm caudal to the right atrium seems to be the method by which to obtain cIVC measurements best-able to predict patients' response to volume expansion.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33306164
doi: 10.1186/s13613-020-00786-1
pii: 10.1186/s13613-020-00786-1
pmc: PMC7732956
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
168Références
Intensive Care Med. 2015 Feb;41(2):248-56
pubmed: 25447804
Crit Care Med. 2010 Sep;38(9):1824-9
pubmed: 20639753
West J Emerg Med. 2017 Apr;18(3):496-501
pubmed: 28435502
Crit Care. 2010;14(4):R142
pubmed: 20670424
Crit Care Clin. 2016 Apr;32(2):213-22
pubmed: 27016163
Anesthesiology. 1998 Dec;89(6):1313-21
pubmed: 9856704
Crit Care Med. 2010 Mar;38(3):819-25
pubmed: 20016380
Intensive Care Med. 2007 Jul;33(7):1117-1124
pubmed: 17508201
Crit Care. 2012 Oct 08;16(5):R188
pubmed: 23043910
Crit Care Med. 2017 Mar;45(3):386-394
pubmed: 27922878
Arch Int Physiol Biochim. 1984 Nov;92(4):317-25
pubmed: 6085251
Shock. 2018 Feb;49(2):235-236
pubmed: 28786830
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10
pubmed: 26903338
Eur Heart J. 2016 Jul 14;37(27):2129-2200
pubmed: 27206819
Surgery. 1981 Jul;90(1):61-76
pubmed: 7245052
Crit Care. 2019 Apr 11;23(1):116
pubmed: 30971307
Intensive Care Med. 2015 Sep;41(9):1529-37
pubmed: 26162676
Intensive Care Med. 2018 Feb;44(2):197-203
pubmed: 29356854
Crit Care Med. 2011 Feb;39(2):259-65
pubmed: 20975548
Shock. 2013 Feb;39(2):155-60
pubmed: 23324885
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Feb;43(2):155-170
pubmed: 27734109
Minerva Anestesiol. 2019 May;85(5):514-521
pubmed: 30482000
Crit Care Med. 2006 Feb;34(2):344-53
pubmed: 16424713
Chest. 1990 Dec;98(6):1450-4
pubmed: 2245688
Intensive Care Med. 2010 Jun;36(6):940-8
pubmed: 20111858
Chest. 2009 Apr;135(4):1050-1060
pubmed: 19188546
Crit Care Med. 2017 Mar;45(3):e290-e297
pubmed: 27749318
JAMA. 2019 Feb 19;321(7):654-664
pubmed: 30772908
Cardiol Res Pract. 2012;2012:191807
pubmed: 22195286
Intensive Care Med. 2014 Dec;40(12):1795-815
pubmed: 25392034
Nat Rev Nephrol. 2010 Feb;6(2):107-15
pubmed: 20027192
Crit Care. 2020 Jan 23;24(1):23
pubmed: 31973735
J Appl Physiol (1985). 1990 Dec;69(6):1961-72
pubmed: 2076989
Ann Intensive Care. 2018 Aug 2;8(1):79
pubmed: 30073423
Crit Care. 2015 Nov 13;19:400
pubmed: 26563768
JAMA. 2016 Sep 27;316(12):1298-309
pubmed: 27673307
Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2016 Apr;35(2):93-102
pubmed: 26603329
Crit Care Med. 2019 Aug;47(8):e639-e647
pubmed: 31306258
Circulation. 1984 Sep;70(3):425-31
pubmed: 6744546
Am J Perinatol. 2015 Mar;32(4):393-8
pubmed: 25241109
Intensive Care Med. 2009 Jan;35(1):77-84
pubmed: 18830578
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000 Jul;162(1):134-8
pubmed: 10903232
JAMA. 1993 Dec 22-29;270(24):2957-63
pubmed: 8254858
Ann Intensive Care. 2018 Feb 9;8(1):21
pubmed: 29427013
Crit Care Med. 2017 Sep;45(9):1538-1545
pubmed: 28817481
Chest. 2002 Jun;121(6):2000-8
pubmed: 12065368
Acad Emerg Med. 2010 Jan;17(1):96-9
pubmed: 20003120
Intensive Care Med. 2007 Jul;33(7):1133-1138
pubmed: 17508202
Crit Care Med. 2005 Dec;33(12):2757-62
pubmed: 16352956
Anesthesiology. 2016 Jun;124(6):1338-46
pubmed: 27003619
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019 Jul;44(7):2511-2527
pubmed: 30937506