Inferior vena cava distensibility during pressure support ventilation: a prospective study evaluating interchangeability of subcostal and trans‑hepatic views, with both M‑mode and automatic border tracing.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Mateusz Zawadka, Cristina Santonocito, Veronica Dezio, Paolo Amelio, Simone Messina, Luigi Cardia, Federico Franchi, Antonio Messina, Chiara Robba, Alberto Noto, Filippo Sanfilippo
{"title":"Inferior vena cava distensibility during pressure support ventilation: a prospective study evaluating interchangeability of subcostal and trans‑hepatic views, with both M‑mode and automatic border tracing.","authors":"Mateusz Zawadka, Cristina Santonocito, Veronica Dezio, Paolo Amelio, Simone Messina, Luigi Cardia, Federico Franchi, Antonio Messina, Chiara Robba, Alberto Noto, Filippo Sanfilippo","doi":"10.1007/s10877-024-01177-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) is commonly utilized to evaluate fluid status in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU),with more recent emphasis on the study of venous congestion. It is predominantly measured via subcostal approach (SC) or trans-hepatic (TH) views, and automated border tracking (ABT) software has been introduced to facilitate its assessment. Prospective observational study on patients ventilated in pressure support ventilation (PSV) with 2 × 2 factorial design. Primary outcome was to evaluate interchangeability of measurements of the IVC and the distensibility index (DI) obtained using both M-mode and ABT, across both SC and TH. Statistical analyses comprised Bland-Altman assessments for mean bias, limits of agreement (LoA), and the Spearman correlation coefficients. IVC visualization was 100% successful via SC, while TH view was unattainable in 17.4% of cases. As compared to the M-mode, the IVC-DI obtained through ABT approach showed divergences in both SC (mean bias 5.9%, LoA -18.4% to 30.2%, ICC = 0.52) and TH window (mean bias 6.2%, LoA -8.0% to 20.4%, ICC = 0.67). When comparing the IVC-DI measures obtained in the two anatomical sites, accuracy improved with a mean bias of 1.9% (M-mode) and 1.1% (ABT), but LoA remained wide (M-mode: -13.7% to 17.5%; AI: -19.6% to 21.9%). Correlation was generally suboptimal (r = 0.43 to 0.60). In PSV ventilated patients, we found that IVC-DI calculated with M-mode is not interchangeable with ABT measurements. Moreover, the IVC-DI gathered from SC or TH view produces not comparable results, mainly in terms of precision.</p>","PeriodicalId":15513,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11427491/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-024-01177-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) is commonly utilized to evaluate fluid status in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU),with more recent emphasis on the study of venous congestion. It is predominantly measured via subcostal approach (SC) or trans-hepatic (TH) views, and automated border tracking (ABT) software has been introduced to facilitate its assessment. Prospective observational study on patients ventilated in pressure support ventilation (PSV) with 2 × 2 factorial design. Primary outcome was to evaluate interchangeability of measurements of the IVC and the distensibility index (DI) obtained using both M-mode and ABT, across both SC and TH. Statistical analyses comprised Bland-Altman assessments for mean bias, limits of agreement (LoA), and the Spearman correlation coefficients. IVC visualization was 100% successful via SC, while TH view was unattainable in 17.4% of cases. As compared to the M-mode, the IVC-DI obtained through ABT approach showed divergences in both SC (mean bias 5.9%, LoA -18.4% to 30.2%, ICC = 0.52) and TH window (mean bias 6.2%, LoA -8.0% to 20.4%, ICC = 0.67). When comparing the IVC-DI measures obtained in the two anatomical sites, accuracy improved with a mean bias of 1.9% (M-mode) and 1.1% (ABT), but LoA remained wide (M-mode: -13.7% to 17.5%; AI: -19.6% to 21.9%). Correlation was generally suboptimal (r = 0.43 to 0.60). In PSV ventilated patients, we found that IVC-DI calculated with M-mode is not interchangeable with ABT measurements. Moreover, the IVC-DI gathered from SC or TH view produces not comparable results, mainly in terms of precision.

Abstract Image

压力支持通气过程中的下腔静脉扩张性:一项前瞻性研究,通过 M 模式和自动边界追踪评估肋下和经肝视图的互换性。
下腔静脉(IVC)通常用于评估重症监护室(ICU)的体液状况,最近更侧重于静脉充血的研究。它主要通过肋下切口(SC)或经肝切口(TH)进行测量,而自动边界追踪(ABT)软件的推出则为其评估提供了便利。前瞻性观察研究针对使用压力支持通气(PSV)的患者,采用 2 × 2 因式设计。主要结果是评估使用 M 型和 ABT 测量的 IVC 和扩张性指数 (DI) 在 SC 和 TH 之间的互换性。统计分析包括对平均偏差、一致性极限 (LoA) 和斯皮尔曼相关系数的 Bland-Altman 评估。通过 SC 对 IVC 观察的成功率为 100%,而在 17.4% 的病例中无法通过 TH 观察。与 M 模式相比,通过 ABT 方法获得的 IVC-DI 在 SC 窗口(平均偏差 5.9%,LoA -18.4% 至 30.2%,ICC = 0.52)和 TH 窗口(平均偏差 6.2%,LoA -8.0% 至 20.4%,ICC = 0.67)均显示出差异。比较在两个解剖部位获得的 IVC-DI 测量结果,准确性有所提高,平均偏差为 1.9%(M-mode)和 1.1%(ABT),但 LoA 仍较宽(M-mode:-13.7% 至 17.5%;AI:-19.6% 至 21.9%)。相关性普遍不理想(r = 0.43 至 0.60)。在 PSV 通气患者中,我们发现用 M 型计算的 IVC-DI 与 ABT 测量结果不能互换。此外,从 SC 或 TH 视图收集的 IVC-DI 结果也不尽相同,主要是在精确度方面。
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
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.60%
发文量
144
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing is a clinical journal publishing papers related to technology in the fields of anaesthesia, intensive care medicine, emergency medicine, and peri-operative medicine. The journal has links with numerous specialist societies, including editorial board representatives from the European Society for Computing and Technology in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (ESCTAIC), the Society for Technology in Anesthesia (STA), the Society for Complex Acute Illness (SCAI) and the NAVAt (NAVigating towards your Anaestheisa Targets) group. The journal publishes original papers, narrative and systematic reviews, technological notes, letters to the editor, editorial or commentary papers, and policy statements or guidelines from national or international societies. The journal encourages debate on published papers and technology, including letters commenting on previous publications or technological concerns. The journal occasionally publishes special issues with technological or clinical themes, or reports and abstracts from scientificmeetings. Special issues proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Specific details of types of papers, and the clinical and technological content of papers considered within scope can be found in instructions for authors.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信