• BMC anesthesiology · Mar 2022

    The diagnostic accuracy of inferior vena cava respiratory variation in predicting volume responsiveness in patients under different breathing status following abdominal surgery.

    • Qian Ma, Xueduo Shi, Jingjing Ji, Luning Chen, Yali Tian, Jing Hao, and Bingbing Li.
    • Department of Anesthesiology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hosptial of Nanjing University Medical School, 321 Zhongshan Road, 210008, Nanjing, China.
    • BMC Anesthesiol. 2022 Mar 8; 22 (1): 63.

    BackgroundThe validation of inferior vena cava (IVC) respiratory variation for predicting volume responsiveness is still under debate, especially in spontaneously breathing patients. The present study aims to verify the effectiveness and accuracy of IVC variability for volume assessment in the patients after abdominal surgery under artificially or spontaneously breathing.MethodsA total of fifty-six patients after abdominal surgeries in the anesthesia intensive care unit ward were included. All patients received ultrasonographic examination before and after the fluid challenge of 5 ml/kg crystalloid within 15 min. The same measurements were performed when the patients were extubated. The IVC diameter, blood flow velocity-time integral of the left ventricular outflow tract, and cardiac output (CO) were recorded. Responders were defined as an increment in CO of 15% or more from baseline.ResultsThere were 33 (58.9%) mechanically ventilated patients and 22 (39.3%) spontaneously breathing patients responding to fluid resuscitation, respectively. The area under the curve was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.68-0.90) for the IVC dimeter variation (cIVC1) in mechanically ventilated patients, 0.87 (95% CI: 0.75-0.94) for the collapsibility of IVC (cIVC2), and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.73-0.93) for the minimum IVC diameter (IVCmin) in spontaneously breathing patients. The optimal cutoff value was 15.32% for cIVC1, 30.25% for cIVC2, and 1.14 cm for IVCmin. Furthermore, the gray zone for cIVC2 was 30.72 to 38.32% and included 23.2% of spontaneously breathing patients, while 17.01 to 25.93% for cIVC1 comprising 44.6% of mechanically ventilated patients. Multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated that cIVC was an independent predictor of volume assessment for patients after surgery irrespective of breathing modes.ConclusionIVC respiratory variation is validated in predicting patients' volume responsiveness after abdominal surgery irrespective of the respiratory modes. However, cIVC or IVCmin in spontaneously breathing patients was superior to cIVC in mechanically ventilated patients in terms of clinical utility, with few subjects in the gray zone for the volume responsiveness appraisal.Trial RegistrationChiCTR-INR-17013093 . Initial registration date was 24/10/2017.© 2022. The Author(s).

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.