Ultrasound Guided Measurement of Inferior Vena Cava Diameter, Common Carotid Artery Diameter versus Central Venous Pressure for Estimation of Intravascular Volume Status in Septic Shock Patients

Ayman Adel Abbas Ali, Osama Mofreh Salem, Mohamad Mohamad AbdElhamed Elghonimy, Mohamad Samy Mohamad Sharaf
{"title":"Ultrasound Guided Measurement of Inferior Vena Cava Diameter, Common Carotid Artery Diameter versus Central Venous Pressure for Estimation of Intravascular Volume Status in Septic Shock Patients","authors":"Ayman Adel Abbas Ali, Osama Mofreh Salem, Mohamad Mohamad AbdElhamed Elghonimy, Mohamad Samy Mohamad Sharaf","doi":"10.55675/sjms.v3i3.91","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: In critically ill patients, the fluid resuscitation is crucial and is the first step in treatment protocol. Invasive CVP measurement was used to guide fluid resuscitation. However, it is time consuming and invasive maneuver. Ultrasound measurement of inferior vena cave and common carotid arteries are suggest to predict the fluid response as well as CVP or even better. The current work designed to compare inferior vena cava diameter and common carotid artery diameter with central venous pressure for estimation of intravascular volume status in septic shock.   \nPatients and Methods: The study included 60 subjects with septic shock who received vasopressor support. CVP and ultrasound were performed before and after fluid challenge test. Values of inferior vena cava and common carotid arteries were documented and compared to CVP values.  This was performed after full clinical assessment by detailed clinical examination and laboratory workup.\nResults: The MAP was significantly increased and HR decreased after than before procedure.  In addition, CVP, (inferior vena cava), ICVmax, ICV min and common carotid artery diameter (CCAD) were significantly increased, IVC CI (%) was significantly reduced after procedure than basal values. There was significant decrease of IVCmax, IVCmin and CCAD while there was significant increase of IVC CI% with lower (<8) than higher (> 8) CVP values.   CVP was positively and significantly correlated with IVCmax, IVCmin and CCAD, while it was inversely correlated with IVC CI%. The AUC was over 0.75 for IVCmax, IVCmin and CCAD for prediction of CVP while it was lower than 0.7 for IVC CI%. These data reflected the better predictive power of IVCmax, IVCmin and CCAD. The best cutoff value was 1.35, 1.25, 10.45 and 4.15 for IVCmax, IVCmin, IVC CI% and CCAD successively. \nConclusion: IVC and CCA diameters measurement by US may replace CVP measurement for estimation of intravascular volume status in septic shock patients.","PeriodicalId":486005,"journal":{"name":"The Scientific Journal of Medical Scholar","volume":"122 17","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Scientific Journal of Medical Scholar","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55675/sjms.v3i3.91","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In critically ill patients, the fluid resuscitation is crucial and is the first step in treatment protocol. Invasive CVP measurement was used to guide fluid resuscitation. However, it is time consuming and invasive maneuver. Ultrasound measurement of inferior vena cave and common carotid arteries are suggest to predict the fluid response as well as CVP or even better. The current work designed to compare inferior vena cava diameter and common carotid artery diameter with central venous pressure for estimation of intravascular volume status in septic shock.    Patients and Methods: The study included 60 subjects with septic shock who received vasopressor support. CVP and ultrasound were performed before and after fluid challenge test. Values of inferior vena cava and common carotid arteries were documented and compared to CVP values.  This was performed after full clinical assessment by detailed clinical examination and laboratory workup. Results: The MAP was significantly increased and HR decreased after than before procedure.  In addition, CVP, (inferior vena cava), ICVmax, ICV min and common carotid artery diameter (CCAD) were significantly increased, IVC CI (%) was significantly reduced after procedure than basal values. There was significant decrease of IVCmax, IVCmin and CCAD while there was significant increase of IVC CI% with lower (<8) than higher (> 8) CVP values.   CVP was positively and significantly correlated with IVCmax, IVCmin and CCAD, while it was inversely correlated with IVC CI%. The AUC was over 0.75 for IVCmax, IVCmin and CCAD for prediction of CVP while it was lower than 0.7 for IVC CI%. These data reflected the better predictive power of IVCmax, IVCmin and CCAD. The best cutoff value was 1.35, 1.25, 10.45 and 4.15 for IVCmax, IVCmin, IVC CI% and CCAD successively.  Conclusion: IVC and CCA diameters measurement by US may replace CVP measurement for estimation of intravascular volume status in septic shock patients.
超声引导下测量下腔静脉直径、颈总动脉直径和中心静脉压以估测脓毒性休克患者的血管内容量状态
背景:对于重症患者来说,液体复苏至关重要,是治疗方案的第一步。有创 CVP 测量用于指导液体复苏。然而,这是一项耗时且具有侵入性的操作。下腔静脉和颈总动脉的超声测量可预测液体反应,其效果与 CVP 不相上下,甚至更好。目前的研究旨在比较下腔静脉直径和颈总动脉直径与中心静脉压,以估计脓毒性休克患者的血管内容量状况。 患者和方法:研究纳入了 60 名接受血管加压支持的脓毒性休克患者。在液体挑战试验前后进行了 CVP 和超声检查。记录下腔静脉和颈总动脉的数值,并与 CVP 数值进行比较。 这是在通过详细的临床检查和实验室检查进行全面临床评估后进行的:结果:与手术前相比,术后血压明显升高,心率明显降低。 此外,术后 CVP、(下腔静脉)、ICVmax、ICV min 和颈总动脉直径(CCAD)明显增加,IVC CI(%)比基础值明显降低。术后 IVCmax、IVCmin 和 CCAD 均明显下降,而 IVC CI% 则随着 CVP 值的降低(8)而明显上升。 CVP 与 IVCmax、IVCmin 和 CCAD 呈显著正相关,而与 IVC CI% 呈反相关。IVCmax、IVCmin 和 CCAD 预测 CVP 的 AUC 均超过 0.75,而 IVC CI% 的 AUC 则低于 0.7。这些数据反映出 IVCmax、IVCmin 和 CCAD 具有更好的预测能力。IVCmax、IVCmin、IVC CI% 和 CCAD 的最佳临界值依次为 1.35、1.25、10.45 和 4.15。结论用 US 测量 IVC 和 CCA 直径可取代 CVP 测量来估计脓毒性休克患者的血管内容量状况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信