ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2016
Comparative evaluation of central venous pressure and sonographic inferior vena cava variability in assessing fluid responsiveness in septic shock.
Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Critical Care Ultrasonography for Volume Management: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Trials.Critical care explorations · 2025Pooled it
- Unexplained mortality differences between septic shock trials: a systematic analysis of population characteristics and control-group mortality rates.Intensive care medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Accuracy of Pocket-sized Ultrasound Devices to Evaluate Inferior Vena Cava Diameter and Variability in Critically Ill Patients.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveFluid infusion, the most critical step in the resuscitation of patients with septic shock, needs preferably continuous invasive hemodynamic monitoring. The study was planned to evaluate the efficacy of ultrasonographically measured inferior vena cava collapsibility index (IVC CI) in comparison to central venous pressure (CVP) in predicting fluid responsiveness in septic shock. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-six patients of septic shock requiring ventilatory support (invasive/noninvasive) were included. Patients with congestive heart failure, raised intra-abdominal pressure, and poor echo window were excluded from the study. They were randomly divided into two groups based on mode of fluid resuscitation - Group I (CVP) and Group II (IVC CI). Primary end-points were mean arterial pressure (MAP) of ≥65 mmHg and CVP >12 mmHg or IVC CI <20% in Groups I and II, respectively. Patients were followed till achievement of end-points or maximum of 6 h. Outcome variables (pulse rate, MAP, urine output, pH, base deficit, and ScvO
resultsPrimary end-point was reached in 31 patients (15 in Group I and 16 in Group II). Fluid infusion, by either method, had increased CVP and decreased IVC CI with resultant negative correlation between them (Pearson correlation coefficient -0.626). There was no significant difference in the amount of fluid infused and time to reach end-point in two groups. Comparison in outcome variables at baseline and end-point showed no significant difference including mortality.
conclusionCVP and IVC CI are negatively correlated with fluid resuscitation, and both methods can be used for resuscitation, with IVC CI being noninferior to CVP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.