ArticleJornal de pediatria
Comparison of vena cava distensibility index and pulse pressure variation for the evaluation of intravascular volume in critically ill children.
Article in Jornal de pediatria. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn this study, the authors aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the vena cava distensibility index and pulse pressure variation as dynamic parameters for estimating intravascular volume in critically ill children.
methodsPatients aged 1 month to 18 years, who were hospitalized in the present study's pediatric intensive care unit, were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups according to central venous pressure: hypovolemic (< 8 mmHg) and non-hypovolemic (central venous pressure ≥ 8 mmHg) groups. In both groups, vena cava distensibility index was measured using bedside ultrasound and pulse pressure variation. Measurements were recorded and evaluated under arterial monitoring.
resultsIn total, 19 (47.5%) of the 40 subjects included in the study were assigned to the central venous pressure ≥ 8 mmHg group, and 21 (52.5%) to the central venous pressure < 8 mmHg group. A moderate positive correlation was found between pulse pressure variation and vena cava distensibility index (r = 0.475, p < 0.01), while there were strong negative correlations of central venous pressure with pulse pressure variation and vena cava distensibility index (r = -0.628, p < 0.001 and r = -0.760, p < 0.001, respectively). In terms of predicting hypovolemia, the predictive power for vena cava distensibility index was > 16% (sensitivity, 90.5%; specificity, 94.7%) and that for pulse pressure variation was > 14% (sensitivity, 71.4%; specificity, 89.5%).
conclusionVena cava distensibility index has higher sensitivity and specificity than pulse pressure variation for estimating intravascular volume, along with the advantage of non-invasive bedside application.
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.