Inferior vena cava distensibility during pressure support ventilation: a prospective study evaluating interchangeability of subcostal and trans‑hepatic views, with both M‑mode and automatic border tracing.
Mateusz Zawadka, Cristina Santonocito, Veronica Dezio, Paolo Amelio, Simone Messina, Luigi Cardia, Federico Franchi, Antonio Messina, Chiara Robba, Alberto Noto, Filippo Sanfilippo
{"title":"Inferior vena cava distensibility during pressure support ventilation: a prospective study evaluating interchangeability of subcostal and trans‑hepatic views, with both M‑mode and automatic border tracing.","authors":"Mateusz Zawadka, Cristina Santonocito, Veronica Dezio, Paolo Amelio, Simone Messina, Luigi Cardia, Federico Franchi, Antonio Messina, Chiara Robba, Alberto Noto, Filippo Sanfilippo","doi":"10.1007/s10877-024-01177-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) is commonly utilized to evaluate fluid status in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU),with more recent emphasis on the study of venous congestion. It is predominantly measured via subcostal approach (SC) or trans-hepatic (TH) views, and automated border tracking (ABT) software has been introduced to facilitate its assessment. Prospective observational study on patients ventilated in pressure support ventilation (PSV) with 2 × 2 factorial design. Primary outcome was to evaluate interchangeability of measurements of the IVC and the distensibility index (DI) obtained using both M-mode and ABT, across both SC and TH. Statistical analyses comprised Bland-Altman assessments for mean bias, limits of agreement (LoA), and the Spearman correlation coefficients. IVC visualization was 100% successful via SC, while TH view was unattainable in 17.4% of cases. As compared to the M-mode, the IVC-DI obtained through ABT approach showed divergences in both SC (mean bias 5.9%, LoA -18.4% to 30.2%, ICC = 0.52) and TH window (mean bias 6.2%, LoA -8.0% to 20.4%, ICC = 0.67). When comparing the IVC-DI measures obtained in the two anatomical sites, accuracy improved with a mean bias of 1.9% (M-mode) and 1.1% (ABT), but LoA remained wide (M-mode: -13.7% to 17.5%; AI: -19.6% to 21.9%). Correlation was generally suboptimal (r = 0.43 to 0.60). In PSV ventilated patients, we found that IVC-DI calculated with M-mode is not interchangeable with ABT measurements. Moreover, the IVC-DI gathered from SC or TH view produces not comparable results, mainly in terms of precision.</p>","PeriodicalId":15513,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","volume":" ","pages":"981-990"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11427491/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-024-01177-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) is commonly utilized to evaluate fluid status in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU),with more recent emphasis on the study of venous congestion. It is predominantly measured via subcostal approach (SC) or trans-hepatic (TH) views, and automated border tracking (ABT) software has been introduced to facilitate its assessment. Prospective observational study on patients ventilated in pressure support ventilation (PSV) with 2 × 2 factorial design. Primary outcome was to evaluate interchangeability of measurements of the IVC and the distensibility index (DI) obtained using both M-mode and ABT, across both SC and TH. Statistical analyses comprised Bland-Altman assessments for mean bias, limits of agreement (LoA), and the Spearman correlation coefficients. IVC visualization was 100% successful via SC, while TH view was unattainable in 17.4% of cases. As compared to the M-mode, the IVC-DI obtained through ABT approach showed divergences in both SC (mean bias 5.9%, LoA -18.4% to 30.2%, ICC = 0.52) and TH window (mean bias 6.2%, LoA -8.0% to 20.4%, ICC = 0.67). When comparing the IVC-DI measures obtained in the two anatomical sites, accuracy improved with a mean bias of 1.9% (M-mode) and 1.1% (ABT), but LoA remained wide (M-mode: -13.7% to 17.5%; AI: -19.6% to 21.9%). Correlation was generally suboptimal (r = 0.43 to 0.60). In PSV ventilated patients, we found that IVC-DI calculated with M-mode is not interchangeable with ABT measurements. Moreover, the IVC-DI gathered from SC or TH view produces not comparable results, mainly in terms of precision.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing is a clinical journal publishing papers related to technology in the fields of anaesthesia, intensive care medicine, emergency medicine, and peri-operative medicine.
The journal has links with numerous specialist societies, including editorial board representatives from the European Society for Computing and Technology in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (ESCTAIC), the Society for Technology in Anesthesia (STA), the Society for Complex Acute Illness (SCAI) and the NAVAt (NAVigating towards your Anaestheisa Targets) group.
The journal publishes original papers, narrative and systematic reviews, technological notes, letters to the editor, editorial or commentary papers, and policy statements or guidelines from national or international societies. The journal encourages debate on published papers and technology, including letters commenting on previous publications or technological concerns. The journal occasionally publishes special issues with technological or clinical themes, or reports and abstracts from scientificmeetings. Special issues proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Specific details of types of papers, and the clinical and technological content of papers considered within scope can be found in instructions for authors.