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

Jie Zhao, Guolin Wang, Jie Zhao, Guolin Wang

Abstract

BACKGROUND This study aimed to investigate the relationship between the inferior vena cava respirophasic variation (IVC collapsibility index [IVCCI]) and the general heart end-diastolic volume index (GEDVI). By determining the above relationship, we could evaluate the utility of IVCCI as an indicator. MATERIAL AND METHODS Forty-two septic patients were finally enrolled in this study. The inferior vena cava's diameter was measured with the largest at the end of expiration (IVC3) and with the smallest at the end of inspiration (IVCi) on the ultrasound (IVCCI=[(IVCD e - IVCD i)/IVCD e] ×100%). The central venous pressure (CVP), cardiac index (CI), and GEDVI were also measured at least 3 times. After fluid resuscitation therapy, the patients with a CI increase induced by more than 15% and less than 15% were classified as the positive response group (PRG) and the negative response group (NRG), respectively. RESULTS After treatment, the average levels of CVP, CI, and GEDVI were significantly higher (P<0.01) in both groups, whereas the IVCCI was reduced. CVP, CI, and GEDVI were negatively correlated with IVCCI in both groups. The correlation coefficient between IVCCI and GEDVI was the greatest (correlation coefficient in the PRG group was 0.889 and in the NRG group it was 0.672). The ROC curve analysis indicated that IVCCI illustrated the best area under the curve, with a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 100%, and a cut-off value of 12.9% to predict GEDVI <600 ml/m2 in the PRG group. CONCLUSIONS IVCCI was a good predictor of low-volume state. The IVCCI appears to be a valuable and non-invasive index for the estimation of elevated GEDVI during fluid resuscitation in septic shock patients.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interests None.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Measurement of IVC (arrows) on ultrasonography.
Figure 2
Figure 2
ROC analysis of IVCCI in predicting fluid responsiveness for a GEDWI ≤600 mL/m2. The area under the curve was 0.917 in PRG group. Threshold values of IVCCI are given with their respective sensitivity and specificity.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Serial changes in GEDVI and IVCCI. The same symbols connected by straight lines indicate identical patients. (deep blue symbols) Initial measurement; (light blue symbols) subsequent measurement.

References

    1. Anand IS, Ferrari R, Kalra GS, et al. Edema of cardiac origin. Studies of body water and sodium, renal function, hemodynamic indexes, and plasma hormones in untreated congestive cardiac failure. Circulation. 1989;80:299–305.
    1. Kauvar DS, Wade CE. The epidemiology and modern management of traumatic hemorrhage: US and international perspectives. Crit Care. 2005;38:185–93.
    1. Seymour CW, Rosengart MR. Septic shock: Advances in diagnosis and treatment. JAMA. 2015;314:708–17.
    1. Monge GM, Gil AD, Monrove JC. Brachial artery peak velocity variation to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. Crit Care. 2009;13:142.
    1. Michard F, Alaya S, Zarka V, et al. Global end diastolic volume as an indicator of cardiac preload in patients with septic shock. Chest. 2003;124:1900–8.
    1. Preau S, Saulnier F, Dewavrin F, et al. Passive leg raising is predictive of fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients with severe sepsis or acute pancreatitis. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:819–25.
    1. Napoli AM, Machan JT, Corl K, et al. The use of impedance cardiography in predicting mortality in emergency department patients with severe sepsis and septic shoch. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17:452–55.
    1. ARISE Investigators; ANZICS Clinical Trials Group. Peake SL, et al. Goal-directed resuscitation for patients with early septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1496–506.
    1. Lilly CM. The ProCESS trial – a new era of sepsis management. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1750–51.
    1. Mouncey PR, Osborn TM, Power GS, et al. Trial of early, goal-directed resuscitation for septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1301–11.
    1. Cannesson M, Musard H, Desebbe O, et al. The ability of stroke volume variations obtained with Vigileo/FloTrac system to monitor fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:513–17.
    1. Michard F, Boussat S, Chemla D, et al. Relation between respiratory changes in arterial pulse pressure and fluid responsiveness in septic patients with acute circulatory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;162:134–38.
    1. Mari A, Vallée F, Bedel J. Oxygen challenge test in septic shock patients: Prognostic value and influence of respiratory status. Shock. 2014;41:504–9.
    1. Micek ST, McEvoy C, McKenzie M, et al. Fluid balance and cardiac function in septic shock as predictors of hospital mortality. Crit Care. 2013;17:246.
    1. Hofer CK, Ganter MT, Zollinger A. What technique should I use to measure cardiac output? Crit Care. 2007;13:308–17.
    1. David JB, Dana R, Benjamin C, et al. Inferior vena cava displacement during respirophasic ultrasound imaging. Crit Ultrasound J. 2012;4:18–23.
    1. Elinor CB, Jason P, Faisal K, et al. Best approach to measuring the inferior vena cava in spontaneously ventilating patients: A pilot study. European J Emerg Med. 2014;6:148–52.
    1. Brennan JM, Blair JE, Goonewardena S, et al. A comparison by medicine residents of physical examination versus hand-carried ultrasound for estimation of right atrial pressure. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:1614–16.
    1. Krause I, Birk E, Davidovits M, et al. Inferior vena cava diameter: A useful method for estimation of fliud status in children on haemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2001;16:1203–6.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する