Inferior vena cava collapsibility loses correlation with internal jugular vein collapsibility during increased thoracic or intra-abdominal pressure

Bauman, Zachary M.; Coba, Victor; Gassner, Marika; Amponsah, David; Gallien, John; Blyden, Dionne; Killu, Keith

doi:10.1007/s40477-015-0181-2

Cited by 32 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, the reliability of the IVC collapsibility index during increased thoracic or intra-abdominal pressure remains unclear in patients undergoing NIV, as few data are presently available in this setting of patients. 10 Finally, as suggested in our study limitations, we underlined the lacks of hemodynamic data. An assessment by right heart catheterization might have provided more accurate information about RV function and RAP in OSAS.…”

Section: Next According To Task Force Of the American Academy Of Sleepmentioning

confidence: 76%

Reply

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Next According To Task Force Of the American Academy Of Sleepmentioning

confidence: 76%

Reply

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…[23] There exists a correlation between the collapsibility of the IVC and the IJV, yet this correlation is heavily dependent on intra-thoracic and intraabdominal pressures at the time of measurement. [24] IJV collapsibility index values over 39% are strongly indicative of volume depletion. A study in 2015 by Bauman et al [24] showed that increased intra-abdominal pressure can cause collapse of the IJV, which could be falsely interpreted as volume depletion.…”

Section: Understanding Measurement Of Ivc (Diameter and Collapsibilitmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[24] IJV collapsibility index values over 39% are strongly indicative of volume depletion. A study in 2015 by Bauman et al [24] showed that increased intra-abdominal pressure can cause collapse of the IJV, which could be falsely interpreted as volume depletion. Compared to other large veins in the body the IVC still stands as the most evidence-based indicator of volume status.…”

Section: Understanding Measurement Of Ivc (Diameter and Collapsibilitmentioning

confidence: 99%

The utility of point-of-care ultrasound in the assessment of volume status in acute and critically ill patients

Pourmand¹,

Pyle²,

Yamane³

et al. 2019

World Journal of Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Volume resuscitation has only been demonstrated to be effective in approximately fifty percent of patients. The remaining patients do not respond to volume resuscitation and may even develop adverse outcomes (such as acute pulmonary edema necessitating endotracheal intubation). We believe that point-of-care ultrasound is an excellent modality by which to adequately predict which patients may benefi t from volume resuscitation. DATA RESOURCES: We performed a search using PubMed, Scopus, and MEDLINE. The following search terms were used: fluid responsiveness, ultrasound, non-invasive, hemodynamic, fluid challenge, and passive leg raise. Preference was given to clinical trials and review articles that were most relevant to the topic of assessing a patient's cardiovascular ability to respond to intravenous fl uid administration using ultrasound. RESULTS: Point-of-care ultrasound can be easily employed to measure the diameter and collapsibility of various large vessels including the inferior vena cava, common carotid artery, subclavian vein, internal jugular vein, and femoral vein. Such parameters are closely related to dynamic measures of fluid responsiveness and can be used by providers to help guide fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound in combination with passive leg raise is a non-invasive, costand time-effective modality that can be employed to assess volume status and response to fluid resuscitation. Traditionally sonographic studies have focused on the evaluation of large veins such as the inferior vena cava, and internal jugular vein. A number of recently published studies also demonstrate the usefulness of evaluating large arteries to predict volume status.

show abstract

“…In 2015 [1], the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) published guidelines for the use of general and cardiac ultrasound [2,3]. roughout the years, most studies have focused on individual organs and systems to evaluate the IVV status, such as examining the right and left heart chambers and contractility [2][3][4], evaluation of the inferior vena cava (IVC) [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] and/or its collapsibility, and the internal jugular vein (IJV) [12][13][14][15] and its respiratory variation, as well as lung water volumes and pulmonary edema [16][17][18][19]. rough literature review, we failed to identify a scoring system or a numerical value to help standardize different exams.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sonographic Assessment of Intravascular Fluid Estimate (SAFE) Score by Using Bedside Ultrasound in the Intensive Care Unit

Killu

Coba

Blyden

et al. 2020

Critical Care Research and Practice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. The objective of the study was to use an ultrasound-based numerical scoring system for assessment of intravascular fluid estimate (SAFE) and test its validity. Methods. A prospective, observational study was carried out in the surgical intensive care unit (ICU) of an urban tertiary care teaching hospital. Patient’s intravascular volume status was assessed using the standard methods of heart rate, blood pressure, central venous pressure, cardiac output, lactate and saturation of venous oxygen, and others. This was compared with assessment using bedside ultrasound evaluation of the cardiac function, inferior vena cava, lungs, and the internal jugular vein. Applying a numerical scoring system was evaluated by Fisher’s exact testing and multinomial logistic model to predict the volume status based on ultrasound scores and the classification accuracy. Results. 61 patients in the ICU were evaluated. 21 (34.4% of total) patients diagnosed with hypovolemia, and their ultrasound volume score was −4 in 14 (66.7%) patients, −3 in 5 (23.8%) patients, and 0 in 2 (9.5%) patients (p<0.001). 18 (29.5% of total) patients diagnosed with euvolemia, and their ultrasound volume score was 0 in 11 (61.1%) patients, +1 in 4 (22.2%) patients, and −1 in 1 (5.6%) patient (p<0.001). 22 (36.1% of total) patients diagnosed with hypervolemia, and their ultrasound volume score was +4 in 4 (18.2%) patients, +3 in 15 (68.2%) patients, and + 1 in 1 (4.6%) patient (p<0.001). We found a strong association between standard measures and the ultrasound score (p<0.001). Conclusion. Using the SAFE scoring system to identify the IVV status in critically ill patients significantly correlates with the standard measures. A SAFE score of −4 to −2 more likely represents hypovolemia, −1 to +1 more likely represents euvolemia, and +2 to +4 more likely to be hypervolemia.

show abstract

Inferior vena cava collapsibility loses correlation with internal jugular vein collapsibility during increased thoracic or intra-abdominal pressure

Cited by 32 publications

References 20 publications

Reply

Reply

The utility of point-of-care ultrasound in the assessment of volume status in acute and critically ill patients

Sonographic Assessment of Intravascular Fluid Estimate (SAFE) Score by Using Bedside Ultrasound in the Intensive Care Unit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About