Inferior vena cava collapsibility (cIVC) measured by point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has been proposed as a noninvasive means of assessing fluid responsiveness. We aimed to prospectively evaluate the performance of a 25% cIVC cutoff value to detect fluid responsiveness among spontaneously breathing intensive care unit (ICU) patients when assessed with POCUS by novice versus expert physician sonologists.
Methods:
Prospective observational study of spontaneously breathing ICU patients. Fluid responsiveness was defined as a >10% increase in cardiac index following a 500 mL fluid bolus, measured by bioreactance. Novice sonologist measured cIVC with POCUS. Their measurements were later compared to an expert physician sonologist who independently reviewed the POCUS images and assessed cIVCs.
Results:
Of the 85 participants, 44 (52%) were fluid responders. A 25% cIVC cutoff value performed better when assessed by expert sonologists than novice physician sonologists (receiver–operator characteristic curve, ROC = 0.82 [0.74-0.88] vs ROC = 0.69 [0.60-0.77]).
Conclusions:
A 25% cIVC cutoff value measured by POCUS detects fluid responsiveness. However, the experience of the physician sonologist affects test performance and should be considered when interpreting and clinically using cIVC to direct intravenous fluid resuscitation.
MarikPE. Early management of severe sepsis: concepts and controversies. Chest. 2014;145(6):1407–1418.
2.
MarikPBellomoR. A rational approach to fluid therapy in sepsis. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116(3):339–349.
3.
ByrneLVan HarenF. Fluid resuscitation in human sepsis: time to rewrite history?. Ann Intensive Care. 2017;7:4. doi:10.1186/s13613-016-0231-8.
4.
BoydJHForbesJNakadaTAWalleyKRRussellJA. Fluid resuscitation in septic shock: a positive fluid balance and elevated central venous pressure are associated with increased mortality. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(2):259–265.
5.
MicekSTMcEvoyCMcKenzieMHamptonNDohertyJAKollefMH. Fluid balance and cardiac function in septic shock as predictors of hospital mortality. Crit Care. 2013;17(5):R246.
6.
KelmDJPerrinJTCartin-CebaRGajicOSchenckLKennedyCC. Fluid overload in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock treated with early goal-directed therapy is associated with increased acute need for fluid-related medical interventions and hospital death. Shock. 2015;43(1):68–73.
7.
MarikPELinde-ZwirbleWTBittnerEASahatjianJHansellD. Fluid administration in severe sepsis and septic shock, patterns and outcomes: an analysis of a large national database. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(5):625–632.
8.
MichardFTeboulJL. Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: a critical analysis of the evidence. Chest. 2002;121(6):2000–2008.
9.
SaweHRHaeffeleCMfinangaJAMwafongoVGReynoldsTA. Predicting fluid responsiveness using bedside ultrasound measurements of the inferior vena cava and physician gestalt in the emergency department of an urban public hospital in sub-Saharan Africa. PloS One. 2016;11(9):e0162772.
10.
AtkinsonPRMcAuleyDJKendallRJAbeyakoonOReidCGConnollyJ. Abdominal and cardiac evaluation with sonography in shock (ACES): an approach by emergency physicians for the use of ultrasound in patients with undifferentiated hypotension. Emerg Med. 2009;26(2):87–91.
11.
PereraPMailhotTRileyDMandaviaD. The RUSH exam: rapid ultrasound in shock in the evaluation of the critically lll. Emerg Med Clin of North Am. 2010;28(1):29–56.
12.
CholleyBPVieillard-BaronAMebazaaA. Echocardiography in the ICU: time for widespread use!Intensive Care Med. 2006;32(1):9–10.
13.
MullerLBobbiaXToumiM, et al.AzuRea group: 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.
14.
LanspaMJGrissomCKHirshbergELJonesJPBrownSM. Applying dynamic parameters to predict hemodynamic response to volume expansion in spontaneously breathing patients with septic shock. Shock. 2013;39(2):155–160.
15.
AirapetianNMaizelJAlyamaniO, et al.Does inferior vena cava respiratory variability predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients?Crit care. 2015;19:400.
16.
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.
17.
BortolottiPCollingDColasV, et al.Respiratory changes of the inferior vena cava diameter predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients with cardiac arrhythmias. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8(1):79.
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.
LevitovAFrankelHLBlaivasM, 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(6):1206–1227.
20.
OrsoDPaoliIPianiTCilentiFLCristianiLGuglielmoN. Accuracy of ultrasonographic measurements of inferior vena cava to determine fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Intensive Care Med. 2018:885066617752308. doi:10.1177/0885066617752308.
21.
KanjiHDMcCallumJSirounisDMacRedmondRMossRBoydJH. Limited echocardiography-guided therapy in subacute shock is associated with change in management and improved outcomes. J Crit Care. 2014;29(5):700–705.
22.
AtkinsonPRMilneJDiegelmannL, et al.Does point-of-care ultrasonography improve clinical outcomes in emergency department patients with undifferentiated hypotension? an international randomized controlled trial from the SHoC-ED investigators. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;72(4):478–489.
23.
AkkayaAYesilarasMAksayESeverMAtillaOD. The interrater reliability of ultrasound imaging of the inferior vena cava performed by emergency residents. Am J Emerg Med. 2013;31(10):1509–1511.
24.
LucasBPD’AddioAClarkJ, et al.Reproducibility of point-of-care ultrasonography for central vein diameter measurement: separating image acquisition from interpretation. J Clin Ultrasound. 2017;45(8):488–496.
25.
BowraJUwagboeVGoudieAReidCGillettM. Interrater agreement between expert and novice in measuring inferior vena cava diameter and collapsibility index. Emerg Med Australasia. 2015;27(4):295–299.
26.
FieldsJMLeePAJenqKYMarkDGPanebiancoNLDeanAJ. The interrater reliability of inferior vena cava ultrasound by bedside clinician sonographers in emergency department patients. Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18(1):98–101.
27.
FinnertyNMPanchalARBoulgerC, et al.Inferior vena cava measurement with ultrasound: what is the best view and best mode?West J Emerg Med. 2017;18(3):496–501.
28.
NapoliAM. Physiologic and clinical principles behind noninvasive resuscitation techniques and cardiac output monitoring. Cardiol Res Pract. 2012;2012:531908.
29.
LoPrestiCMSchnobrichDJDversdalRKSchembriF. A road map for point-of-care ultrasound training in internal medicine residency. Ultrasound J. 2019;11(1):10.
30.
BelmontBKesslerRTheyyunniN, et al.Continuous inferior vena cava diameter tracking through an iterative kanade-lucas-tomasi-based algorithm. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2018;44(12):2793–2801.
31.
KomorowskiMCeliLABadawiOGordonACFaisalAA. The artificial intelligence clinician learns optimal treatment strategies for sepsis in intensive care. Nat Med. 2018;24(11):1716–1720.
32.
PanebiancoNLShoferFChengAFischerJCodyKDeanAJ. The effect of supine versus upright patient positioning on inferior vena cava metrics. Am J Emerg Med. 2014;32(11):1326–1329.
33.
GignonLRogerCBastideS, et al.Influence of diaphragmatic motion on inferior vena cava diameter respiratory variations in healthy volunteers. Anesthesiology. 2016;124(6):1338–1346.
34.
VignonPRepesseXBegotE, et al.Comparison of echocardiographic indices used to predict fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(8):1022–1032.
35.
JoostenADesebbeOSuehiro K MurphyLS, et al.Accuracy and precision of non-invasive cardiac output monitoring devices in perioperative medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2017;118(3):298–310.
36.
Kupersztych-HagegeETeboulJLArtigasA, et al.Bioreactance is not reliable for estimating cardiac output and the effects of passive leg raising in critically ill patients. Br J Anaesth. 2013;111(6):961–966.
37.
SquaraPDenjeanDEstagnasiePBrussetADibJCDuboisC. Noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM): a clinical validation. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33(7):1191–1194.
38.
RavalNYSquaraPClemanMYalamanchiliKWinklmaierMBurkhoffD. Multicenter evaluation of noninvasive cardiac output measurement by bioreactance technique. J Clin Monit Comput. 2008;22(2):113–119.
39.
HuyghJPeetersYBernardsJMalbrainML. Hemodynamic monitoring in the critically ill: an overview of current cardiac output monitoring methods. F1000 Res. 2016;5. doi:10.12688/f1000research.8991.1.
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.
