Monira T Ismail1,2, Afaf A El-Iraky1, Emad El-Din A Ibrahim3, Tarek H El Kammash4, Ahmed E Abou-Zied1. 1. Emergency Medicine department, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt. 2. Medical Science Department, Sulaiman Al-Rajhi University, Saudi Arabia. 3. Anesthesia and intensive care department, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt. 4. Diagnostic radiology department, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt.
Abstract
Introduction: Determination of intravascular volume status in patients admitted to the emergency centre is critical. Physical signs of hypovolaemic, distributive, cardiogenic, and obstructive shock frequently overlap, making an accurate diagnosis of shock state difficult. This is problematic because fluid loading is considered the first step in haemodynamically unstable patients' resuscitation. Yet, multiple studies have shown that only approximately 50% of haemodynamically unstable patients in the intensive care unit and operating theatre respond to a fluid challenge. This study aims to provide an accurate estimation of intravascular volume status using bedside noninvasive methods as an essential part of the assessment of volume status in shocked patients. Methodology: This is a cross-sectional analytical study conducted on 102 shocked patients presented to the emergency centre. IV fluid boluses were standardized to be administered at 500 mL every 30 min over 120 min, as clinically indicated. Concurrent measurements of inferior vena cava collapsibility index (IVC-ci) were performed shortly before the initiation of IV bolus (i.e., time 0), and then at 30, 90, and 120 min, we measured both venous collapsibility index (CI) and central venous pressure (CVP). At each session, we recorded patient demographics, fluid responsiveness, and vital sign assessments. Results: We discovered that IVC-ci at cut-off point 40 has a sensitivity of 93.3% and specificity of 70.7% with an AUC of 0.908 and a good 95% CI (0.84-0.975), implying that IVC-ci of 40% or higher can indicate fluid responsiveness in shocked patients. CVP, despite having a good sensitivity of 88.6%, high specificity of 100%, and a significant p-value, is not a reliable detector of fluid responsiveness due to its small AUC value and low 95% CI. Conclusion: IVC-ci could be a good tool with moderate reliability for detecting fluid responsiveness because it is a less invasive and fast method.
Introduction: Determination of intravascular volume status in patients admitted to the emergency centre is critical. Physical signs of hypovolaemic, distributive, cardiogenic, and obstructive shock frequently overlap, making an accurate diagnosis of shock state difficult. This is problematic because fluid loading is considered the first step in haemodynamically unstable patients' resuscitation. Yet, multiple studies have shown that only approximately 50% of haemodynamically unstable patients in the intensive care unit and operating theatre respond to a fluid challenge. This study aims to provide an accurate estimation of intravascular volume status using bedside noninvasive methods as an essential part of the assessment of volume status in shocked patients. Methodology: This is a cross-sectional analytical study conducted on 102 shocked patients presented to the emergency centre. IV fluid boluses were standardized to be administered at 500 mL every 30 min over 120 min, as clinically indicated. Concurrent measurements of inferior vena cava collapsibility index (IVC-ci) were performed shortly before the initiation of IV bolus (i.e., time 0), and then at 30, 90, and 120 min, we measured both venous collapsibility index (CI) and central venous pressure (CVP). At each session, we recorded patient demographics, fluid responsiveness, and vital sign assessments. Results: We discovered that IVC-ci at cut-off point 40 has a sensitivity of 93.3% and specificity of 70.7% with an AUC of 0.908 and a good 95% CI (0.84-0.975), implying that IVC-ci of 40% or higher can indicate fluid responsiveness in shocked patients. CVP, despite having a good sensitivity of 88.6%, high specificity of 100%, and a significant p-value, is not a reliable detector of fluid responsiveness due to its small AUC value and low 95% CI. Conclusion: IVC-ci could be a good tool with moderate reliability for detecting fluid responsiveness because it is a less invasive and fast method.
Authors: Arun D Nagdev; Roland C Merchant; Alfredo Tirado-Gonzalez; Craig A Sisson; Michael C Murphy Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2009-06-25 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Daniele Orso; Irene Paoli; Tommaso Piani; Francesco L Cilenti; Lorenzo Cristiani; Nicola Guglielmo Journal: J Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 3.510
Authors: Stanislaw P Stawicki; Alistair Kent; Prabhav Patil; Christian Jones; Jill C Stoltzfus; Amar Vira; Nicholas Kelly; Andrew N Springer; Daniel Vazquez; David C Evans; Thomas J Papadimos; David P Bahner Journal: Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci Date: 2015 Apr-Jun
Authors: Hendry Robert Sawe; Cathryn Haeffele; Juma A Mfinanga; Victor G Mwafongo; Teri A Reynolds Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-09-27 Impact factor: 3.240