Fluid responsiveness is the ability to increase the cardiac output in response to a fluid challenge. Only about 50% of patients receiving fluid resuscitation for acute circulatory failure increase their stroke volume, but the other 50% may worsen their outcome. Therefore, predicting fluid responsiveness is needed. In this purpose, in recent years, the assessment of the inferior vena cava (IVC) through ultrasound (US) has become very popular. The aim of our work was to systematically review all the previously published studies assessing the accuracy of the diameter of IVC or its respiratory variations measured through US in predicting fluid responsiveness.
Data Sources:
We searched in the MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science databases for all relevant articles from inception to September 2017.
Study Selection:
Included articles specifically addressed the accuracy of IVC diameter or its respiratory variations assessed by US in predicting the fluid responsiveness in critically ill ventilated or not, adult or pediatric patients.
Data Extraction:
We included 26 studies that investigated the role of the caval index (IVC collapsibility or distensibility) and 5 studies on IVC diameter.
Data Synthesis:
We conducted a meta-analysis for caval index with 20 studies: The pooled area under the curve, logarithmic diagnostic odds ratio, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-0.83), 2.02 (95% CI: 1.29-2.89), 0.71 (95% CI: 0.62-0.80), and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.64-0.85), respectively.
Conclusion:
An extreme heterogeneity of included studies was highlighted. Ultrasound evaluation of the diameter of the IVC and its respiratory variations does not seem to be a reliable method to predict fluid responsiveness.
AnsariBMZochiosVFalterFKleinAA. Physiological controversies and methods used to determine fluid responsiveness: a qualitative systematic review. Anaesthesia. 2016;71(1):94–105.
2.
BednarczykJMFridfinnsonJAKumarA, et al.Incorporating dynamic assessment of fluid responsiveness into goal-directed therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(9):1538–1545.
3.
LaherAEWatermeyerMJBuchannanSK, et al.A review of hemodynamic monitoring techniques, methods and devices for the emergency physician. Am J Emerg Med. 2017;35(9):1335–1347.
4.
LongEOakleyEDukeTBablFE; Pediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative. Does respiratory variation in inferior vena cava diameter predict fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Shock. 2017;47(5):550–559.
5.
TeboulJLSaugelBCecconiM, et al.Less invasive hemodynamic monitoring in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(9):1350–1359.
6.
SangkumLLiuGLYuLYanHKayeADLiuH. Minimally invasive or noninvasive cardiac output measurement: an update. J Anesth. 2016;30(3):461–480.
7.
VelissarisDKaramouzosVKotroniIPierrakosCKaranikolasM. The use of pulmonary artery catheter in sepsis patients: a literature review. J Clin Med Res. 2016;8(11):769–776.
8.
YoussefNWhitlockR. The routine use of PAC should be abandoned. Can J Cardiol. 2017;33(1):135–141.
9.
LeeMCurleyGFMustardMMazerCD. The Swan-Ganz catheter remains a critically important component of monitoring in cardiovascular critical care. Can J Cardiol. 2017;33(1):142–147.
10.
WetterslevMHaaseNJohansenRRPernerA. Predicting fluid responsiveness with transthoracic echocardiography is not yet evidence based. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2013;57(6):692–697.
11.
WhitingPFRutjesAWWestwoodME, et al.QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the qualify assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–536.
12.
RueHMartinoSChopinN. Approximate Bayesian inference for latent Gaussian models using integrated nested Laplace approximations. J R Statist Soc B. 2009;71(2):319–392.
13.
MartinsTGSimpsonDLindgrenFRueH. Bayesian computing with INLA: new features. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2013;67:68–83.
14.
LindgrenFRueHLindstromJ. An explicit link between Gaussian fields and Gaussian Markov random fields: the stochastic partial differential equation approach. J R Statist Soc B. 2011;73(4):423–498.
15.
LindgrenFRueH. Bayesian spatial modelling with R-INLA. J Stat Softw. 2015;63(19):1–25.
16.
RueHRieblerASorbyeSH, et al.Bayesian computing with INLA: a review. Annu Rev Stat Appl. 2017;4:395–421.
17.
RutterCMGatsonisCA. A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med. 2001;20(19):2865–2884.
18.
CorlKAGeorgeNRRomanoffJ, et al.Inferior vena cava collapsibility detects fluid responsiveness among spontaneously breathing critically-ill patients. J Crit Care. 2017;41:130–137.
19.
LuNXiXJiangLYangDYinK. Exploring the best predictors of fluid responsiveness in patients with septic shock. Am J Emerg Med. 2017;35(9):1258–1261.
20.
VignonPRepesséXBégotE, et al.Comparison of echocardiography indices used to predict fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients. Am J Resp Crit Care Med. 2017;195(8):1022–1032.
21.
AcharSKSagarMSShettyR, et al.Respiratory variation in aortic flow peak velocity and inferior vena cava distensibility as indices of fluid responsiveness in anaesthetized and mechanically ventilated children. Indian J Anaesth. 2016;60(2):121–126.
22.
de OliveiraOHde FreitasFGRLadeiraRT, et al.Comparison between respiratory changes in the inferior vena cava diameter and pulse pressure variation to predict fluid responsiveness in postoperative patients. J Crit Care. 2016;34:46–49.
23.
MurthiSBFatimaSMenneAR, et al.Ultrasound assessment of volume responsiveness in critically ill surgical patients: two measurements are better than one. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017;82(3):505–511.
24.
SoboczykDNyczKAndruskiewiczPWierzbickiKStaporM. Ultrasonographic caval indices do not significantly contribute to predicting fluid responsiveness immediately after coronary artery bypass grafting when compared to passive leg raising. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2016;14(1):23.
25.
TheerawitPMorasertTSutherasanY. Inferior vena cava diameter variation compared to pulse pressure variation as predictors of fluid responsiveness in sepsis patients. J Crit Care. 2016;36:246–251.
26.
ZhangXFengJZhuP, et al.Ultrasonographic measurements of the inferior vena cava variation as a predictor of fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing anesthesia for surgery. J Surg Res. 2016;204(1):118–122.
27.
WeberTWagnerTNeumannKDeuschE. Low predictability of three different noninvasive methods to determine fluid responsiveness in critically ill children. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2015;16(3):e89–94.
28.
CharbonneauHRiuBFaronM, et al.Predicting preload responsiveness using simultaneous recordings of inferior and superior vena cavae diameters. Crit Care. 2014;18(5):473.
29.
de ValkSOlgersTJHolmanMIsmaelFLigtenbergJJTer MaatenJC. The caval index: an adequate non-invasive ultrasound parameter to predict fluid responsiveness in the emergency department?BMC Anesthesiol. 2014;14:114.
30.
BrunCZieleskiewiczLTextorisJ, et al.Prediction of fluid responsiveness in severe preeclamptic patients with oliguria. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(4):593–600.
31.
LanspaMJGrissomCKHirshbergELJonesJPBrownSM. Applying dynamic parameters to predict hemodynamic response to volume expansion in spontaneously breathing patients with sepsis shock. Shock. 2013;39(5):462.
32.
MullerLBobbiaXToumiM, et al.Respiratory variations of inferior vena cava diameter to predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients with acute circulatory failure: need for a cautious use. Crit Care. 2012;16(5):R188.
33.
Machare-DelgadoEDecaroMMarikPE. Inferior vena cava variation compared to pulse contour analysis as predictors of fluid responsiveness: a prospective cohort study. J Intensive Care Med. 2011;26(2):116–124.
34.
MorettiRPizziB. Inferior vena cava distensibility as a predictor of fluid responsiveness in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neurocrit Care. 2010;13(1):3–9.
35.
BarbierCLoubièresYSchmittC, et al.Respiratory changes in inferior vena cava diameter are helpful in predicting fluid responsiveness in ventilated septic patients. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30(9):1740–1746.
36.
ZhaoJWangG. Inferior vena cava collapsibility index is a valuable and non-invasive index for elevated general heart end-diastolic volume index estimation in septic shock patients. Med Sci Monit. 2016;22:3843–3848.
37.
ByonHJLimCWLeeJH, et al.Prediction of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated children undergoing neurosurgery. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110(4):586–591.
38.
CorlKNapoliAMGardinerF. Bedside sonographic measurement of the inferior vena cava caval index is a poor predictor of fluid responsiveness in emergency department patients. Emerg Med Australas. 2012;24(5):534–539.
39.
ChoiDYKwakHJParkHYKimYBChoiCHLeeJY. Respiratory variation in aortic blood flow velocity as a predictor of fluid responsiveness in children after repair of ventricular septal defect. Pediatr Cardiol. 2010;31(8):1166–1170.
40.
YanagawaYSakamotoTOkadaY. Hypovolemic shock evaluated by sonographic measurement of the inferior vena cava during resuscitation in trauma patients. J Trauma. 2007;63(6):1245–1248.
41.
PreauSBortolottiPCollingD, 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(3):e290–e297.
42.
AirapetianNMaizelJAlyamaniO, et al.Does inferior vena cava respiratory variability predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients?Crit Care. 2015;19:400.
43.
SoboczykDNyczKAndruszkiewiczP. Bedside ultrasonographic measurement of the inferior vena cava fails to predict fluid responsiveness in the first 6 hours after cardiac surgery: a prospective case series observational study. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2015;29(3):663–669.
44.
FeisselMMichardFFallerJPTeboulJL. The respiratory variation in inferior vena cava diameter as a guide to fluid therapy. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30(9):1834–1837.
45.
GanHCannessonMChandlerJRAnserminoJM. Predicting fluid responsiveness in children: a systematic review. Anesth Analg. 2013;117(6):1380–1392.
46.
DiptiASoucyZSuranaAChandraS. Role of the inferior vena cava diameter in assessment of volume status: a meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med. 2012;30(8):1414–1419.
47.
RubinsonRMVaskoJSDoppmanJLMorrowAG. Inferior vena cava obstruction from increased intra-abdominal pressure. Experimental hemodynamic and angiographic observations. Arch Surg. 1967;94(6):766–770.
48.
MarkouNGrigorakosLMyrianthefsP, et al.Venous pressure measurement in the superior and inferior vena cava: the influence of intra-abdominal pressure. Hepatogastroenterology. 2004;51(55):51–55.
49.
ViaGTavazziGPriceS. Ten situations where inferior vena cava ultrasound may fail to accurately predict fluid responsiveness: a physiologically based point of view. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(7):1164–1147.
50.
ZhangZXuXYeSXuL. 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(5):845–853.
51.
Alavi-MoghaddamMKabirAShojaeeMManouchehrifarMMoghimiM. Ultrasonography of inferior vena cava to determine central venous pressure: a meta-analysis and meta-regression. Acta Radiol. 2017;58(5):537–541.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
