Evaluation of fluid responsiveness with dynamic superior vena cava collapsibility index in mechanically ventilated patients

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the superior vena cava collapsibility index measured by transesophageal echocardiography and compare the index with stroke volume variation measured by FloTrac™/Vigileo™ in mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: In the prospective study, a total of 60 patients were enrolled for elective general surgery under mechanical ventilation, where all patients received 10 ml/kg of Ringer’s lactate. Five kinds of related data were recorded before and after the fluid challenge, including the superior vena cava collapsibility index (SVC-CI), the ratio of E/e’, cardiac index (CI), stroke volume variation (SVV), and central venous pressure (CVP). Based on the collected data after the fluid challenge, we classified the patients as responders (FR group) if their CI increased by at least 15% and the rest were non-responders (NR). RESULTS: Twenty-five of 52 (48%) of the patients were responders, and 27 were non-responders (52%). The SVC-CI was higher in the responders (41.90 ± 11.48 vs 28.92 ± 9.05%, P < 0.01). SVC-CI was significantly correlated with △CI (FloTrac) (r = 0.568, P < 0.01). The area under the ROC curve (AUROC) of SVC-CI was 0.838 (95% CI 0.728 ~ 0.947, P < 0.01) with the optimal cutoff value of 39.4% (sensitivity 64%, specificity 92.6%). And there was no significant difference in E/e’ between the two groups (P > 0.05). The best cutoff value for SVV was 12.5% (sensitivity 40%, specificity 89%) with the AUROC of 0.68 (95% CI 0.53 ~ 0.826, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The SVC-CI and SVV can predict fluid responsiveness effectively in mechanically ventilated patients. And SVC-CI is superior in predicting fluid responsiveness compared with SVV. The E/e’ ratio and CVP cannot predict FR effectively. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese clinical trial registry (ChiCTR2000034940).