| Literature DB >> 26702359 |
Nawal Salahuddin1, Iqbal Hussain1, Hakam Alsaidi1, Quratulain Shaikh1, Mini Joseph2, Hassan Hawa1, Khalid Maghrabi1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Determination of a patient's volume status remains challenging. Ultrasound assessments of the inferior vena cava and lung parenchyma have been shown to reflect fluid status when compared to the more traditional static and dynamic methods. Yet, resource-limited intensive care units (ICUs) may still not have access to bedside ultrasound. The vascular pedicle width (VPW) measured on chest radiographs remains underutilized for fluid assessment. In this study, we aimed to determine the correlation between ultrasound assessment and vascular pedicle width and to identify a discriminant value that predicted a fluid replete state.Entities:
Keywords: Fluid assessment; Inferior vena cava; Ultrasound; Vascular pedicle width
Year: 2015 PMID: 26702359 PMCID: PMC4688935 DOI: 10.1186/s40560-015-0121-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Intensive Care ISSN: 2052-0492
Representative calculation of lung comet score
| Ultrasound finding | Score | |
|---|---|---|
| Quadrant 1, right | No B lines | 0 |
| Quadrant 2, right | B3 lines | 1 |
| Quadrant 3, right | B7 lines | 2 |
| Quadrant 4, right | B3 lines | 1 |
| Quadrant 1, left | B7 lines | 2 |
| Quadrant 2, eft | B3 lines | 1 |
| Quadrant 3, left | B7 lines | 2 |
| Quadrant 4, left | B3 lines | 1 |
| Lung comet score/maximum possible score | 10/16 |
No B lines, score = 0; B3 lines, score = 1; B7 lines, score = 2
Clinical characteristics
|
| |
|---|---|
| Demographics | |
| Age years | 54.7 ± 20 |
| Female gender | 42 (50 %) |
| APACHE II score | 22.4 ± 9 |
| SAPS II score | 33.4 ± 22 |
| Comorbid conditions | |
| Malignancy | 16 (37 %) |
| End-stage liver disease | 9 (21 %) |
| Acute renal failure | 28 (65 %) |
| Diabetes | 10 (23 %) |
| Admitting diagnosis | |
| Postoperativea | 27 (63 %) |
| Severe sepsis/shock | 19 (44 %) |
| Neurologic failureb | 13 (30 %) |
| GI bleeding/hepatic encephalopathy | 6 (14 %) |
| COPD exacerbation | 4 (9 %) |
| Vasopressors | 23 (53 %) |
| Mean arterial pressure (mmHg) | 79 ± 10.3 |
| pBNP | 2743 (1800, 9253) |
| Serum creatinine (μM/l) | 105 ± 66 |
| Serum Lactate (μM/l) | 2.2 (IQR 1.6) |
| SCVO2 | 65 ± 23.8 |
| Net positive fluid balance | +1145 ml (250, 4527) |
| Hourly urine output (ml/kg/h) | 0.8 (0, 218) |
| Central venous pressure (cmH2O) | 8 ± 1.7 |
| Mechanical ventilation | 43 (100 %) |
| Peak pressure (cmH20) | 29 ± 4.1 |
| PaO2 (mmHg) | 95.4 ± 23.3 |
| FiO2 | 0.41 ± 0.08 |
| PaO2/FiO2 ratio | 235 ± 66 |
| Tidal volume (ml) | 388 ± 78.3 |
| Outcome | |
| ICU survival | 37 (86 %) |
| 28-day survival | 34 (79 %) |
Data is reported as means (± SD) or medians (IQR) for skewed distributions or as proportions
APACHE II Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, SAPS II Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, pBNP pro-beta natriuretic peptide
aPostoperative cases include solid organ transplantation, major abdominal surgery, orthopedic surgery, and head and neck surgery
bIncludes intracranial bleeds, stroke, infections
Fig. 1Correlation between inferior vena cava diameter and vascular pedicle width. Pearson’s correlation coefficient r = 0.64, p = <0.001
Results of multivariate linear regression demonstrating associations between inferior vena cava diameter, lung comet score, net fluid balance, and vascular pedicle width
| Unstandardized coefficients B Std. error | Standardized coefficients | 95 % CI for B |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IVC diameter | 0.285 | 0.076 | 0.524 | 0.13, 0.44 | 0.001 |
| Net fluid balance | 0.002 | 0.001 | 0.181 | 0.001.0.003 | 0.20 |
| Lung comet score | 0.067 | 0.163 | 0.056 | −0.02, 0.39 | 0.6 |
Fig. 2Receiver operating characteristic curve of the vascular pedicle width to identify fluid repletion shows excellent diagnostic ability at an optimal VPW cutoff of 64 mm with area under the curve (AUC) = 0.843, 95 % CI 0.75–0.93, p < 0.001)
Fig. 3Correlations between vascular pedicle width and lung comet score (a) and vascular pedicle width and net fluid balance (b)
Fig. 4Bland-Altman plot comparing the difference (VPW-IVC diameter) with the average (of VPW and IVC diameter)