Comparison of inferior vena cava collapsibility and central venous pressure in assessing volume status in shocked patients

Monira T Ismail; Afaf A El-Iraky; Emad El-Din A Ibrahim; Tarek H El Kammash; Ahmed E Abou-Zied

doi:10.1016/j.afjem.2022.04.005

Comparison of inferior vena cava collapsibility and central venous pressure in assessing volume status in shocked patients

Afr J Emerg Med. 2022 Sep;12(3):165-171. doi: 10.1016/j.afjem.2022.04.005. Epub 2022 May 17.

Authors

Monira T Ismail^{1

2}, Afaf A El-Iraky¹, Emad El-Din A Ibrahim³, Tarek H El Kammash⁴, Ahmed E Abou-Zied¹

Affiliations

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.

Keywords: Emergency centre; Fluid bolus; Shock.