Cargando…

Comparative evaluation of stroke volume variation and inferior vena cava distensibility index for prediction of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the correlation between stroke volume variation (SVV) and inferior vena cava distensibility index (dIVC) as a marker for fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated hypotensive intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN: This study is designed as prospecti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kaur, Kaminder Bir, Nakra, Monish, Mangal, Vishal, Singh, Shalendra, Taank, Priya, Marwah, Vikas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8404606/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34269263
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/aca.ACA_113_20
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the correlation between stroke volume variation (SVV) and inferior vena cava distensibility index (dIVC) as a marker for fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated hypotensive intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN: This study is designed as prospective observational study conducted in patients admitted to an ICU who were mechanically ventilated and experienced a hypotensive episode. INTERVENTION: A fluid challenge of 10 mL/kg ringer’s lactate was given over 20 min. MEASUREMENTS: Hemodynamic parameters as well as SVV, IVCmax, IVCmin, dIVC, and cardiac output (CO), were recorded at a different time interval. An increase in ≥15% of CO was taken as fluid responsiveness. RESULTS: Out of 67 patients, 67.2% responded to fluid challenge. Pearson’s correlation graph at baseline showed a strong positive correlation between dIVC and SVV with r = 0.453, (P < 0.002). Non-responders also had a strong positive correlation (r = 0.474) at the baseline. Bland Altman’s analysis of the correlation between dIVC and SVV post-fluid challenge showed a mean difference of – 4.444, with 1.49% of the values falling outside the limits of agreement (18.418 and -27.306). This difference was clinically significant. Pearson’s correlation graph post-fluid challenge showed a moderately strong positive correlation between dIVC and SVV with r = 0.298 and P value = 0.047, which was statistically significant. Also, non-responders had a weak correlation as compared to the responder’s group, r = 0.364 and P value = 0.095, which was not clinically significant. There was no significant difference in the trend of dIVC and SVV values between the non-surgical and surgical groups, nor was there any gender difference analyzed in the study. CONCLUSION: This study ascertains the positive correlation between dIVC and SVV and justifies its use in a clinical setting of hypotension suspected to be due to hypovolemia.