PURPOSE: Central vein point-of-care ultrasonography must be reproducible to detect intravascular volume changes. We sought to determine which measurement step, image acquisition or interpretation, could be more compromising for reproducibility. METHODS: Three investigators each acquired inferior vena cava (IVC) and internal jugular (IJV) vein ultrasonographic sequences (US) from a convenience sample of 21 hospitalized general medicine participants and then interpreted each US three separate times. We partitioned the random errors of acquisition and interpretation, attributing wider dispersions of each to larger reductions in reproducibility. RESULTS: We analyzed 351 interpretations of 39 IVC and 432 interpretations of 48 IJV US. Reproducibility of the maximum (standard error of measurement 3.3 mm [95% confidence interval, CI 2.7-4.2 mm]) and minimum (4.8 mm [3.9-6.3 mm]) IVC diameter measurements were worse than that of the mediolateral (2.5 mm [2.0-3.2 mm]) and anteroposterior (2.5 mm [2.0-3.1 mm]) IJV diameters. The dispersions of random measurement errors were wider among acquisitions than interpretations. CONCLUSIONS: Among our investigators, central vein diameter measurements obtained by point-of-care ultrasonography are not sufficiently reproducible to distinguish clinically meaningful intravascular volume changes from measurement errors. Reproducibility could be most effectively improved by reducing the random measurement errors of acquisition.
PURPOSE: Central vein point-of-care ultrasonography must be reproducible to detect intravascular volume changes. We sought to determine which measurement step, image acquisition or interpretation, could be more compromising for reproducibility. METHODS: Three investigators each acquired inferior vena cava (IVC) and internal jugular (IJV) vein ultrasonographic sequences (US) from a convenience sample of 21 hospitalized general medicine participants and then interpreted each US three separate times. We partitioned the random errors of acquisition and interpretation, attributing wider dispersions of each to larger reductions in reproducibility. RESULTS: We analyzed 351 interpretations of 39 IVC and 432 interpretations of 48 IJV US. Reproducibility of the maximum (standard error of measurement 3.3 mm [95% confidence interval, CI 2.7-4.2 mm]) and minimum (4.8 mm [3.9-6.3 mm]) IVC diameter measurements were worse than that of the mediolateral (2.5 mm [2.0-3.2 mm]) and anteroposterior (2.5 mm [2.0-3.1 mm]) IJV diameters. The dispersions of random measurement errors were wider among acquisitions than interpretations. CONCLUSIONS: Among our investigators, central vein diameter measurements obtained by point-of-care ultrasonography are not sufficiently reproducible to distinguish clinically meaningful intravascular volume changes from measurement errors. Reproducibility could be most effectively improved by reducing the random measurement errors of acquisition.
Authors: Cynthia Binanay; Robert M Califf; Vic Hasselblad; Christopher M O'Connor; Monica R Shah; George Sopko; Lynne W Stevenson; Gary S Francis; Carl V Leier; Leslie W Miller Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-10-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Anthony J Weekes; Margaret R Lewis; Zachary P Kahler; Donald E Stader; Dale P Quirke; H James Norton; Courtney Almond; Dawn Middleton; Vivek S Tayal Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: J Matthew Fields; Paul A Lee; Katherine Y Jenq; Dustin G Mark; Nova L Panebianco; Anthony J Dean Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Katherine Scovner Ravi; Caroline Espersen; Katherine A Curtis; Jonathan W Cunningham; Karola S Jering; Narayana G Prasad; Elke Platz; Finnian R Mc Causland Journal: Kidney360 Date: 2022-05-10
Authors: Keith A Corl; Nader Azab; Mohammed Nayeemuddin; Alexandra Schick; Thomas Lopardo; Fatima Zeba; Gary Phillips; Grayson Baird; Roland C Merchant; Mitchell M Levy; Michael Blaivas; Adeel Abbasi Journal: J Intensive Care Med Date: 2019-10-14 Impact factor: 3.510