ArticleBMC anesthesiology2022
The diagnostic accuracy of inferior vena cava respiratory variation in predicting volume responsiveness in patients under different breathing status following abdominal surgery.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of Fluid Responsiveness via Central Venous Ultrasound Measurement: A Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- 2025 Expert Consensus Recommendations for the Diagnostic Requirements in Routine Practices of Transthoracic Echocardiography.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2025Article
- Use of POCUS for the assessment of dehydration in pediatric patients-a narrative review.European journal of pediatrics · 2024Review
- Short- and long-term reproducibility of peripheral superficial vein depth and diameter measurements using ultrasound imaging.BMC medical imaging · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe validation of inferior vena cava (IVC) respiratory variation for predicting volume responsiveness is still under debate, especially in spontaneously breathing patients. The present study aims to verify the effectiveness and accuracy of IVC variability for volume assessment in the patients after abdominal surgery under artificially or spontaneously breathing.
methodsA total of fifty-six patients after abdominal surgeries in the anesthesia intensive care unit ward were included. All patients received ultrasonographic examination before and after the fluid challenge of 5 ml/kg crystalloid within 15 min. The same measurements were performed when the patients were extubated. The IVC diameter, blood flow velocity-time integral of the left ventricular outflow tract, and cardiac output (CO) were recorded. Responders were defined as an increment in CO of 15% or more from baseline.
resultsThere were 33 (58.9%) mechanically ventilated patients and 22 (39.3%) spontaneously breathing patients responding to fluid resuscitation, respectively. The area under the curve was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.68-0.90) for the IVC dimeter variation (cIVC1) in mechanically ventilated patients, 0.87 (95% CI: 0.75-0.94) for the collapsibility of IVC (cIVC2), and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.73-0.93) for the minimum IVC diameter (IVCmin) in spontaneously breathing patients. The optimal cutoff value was 15.32% for cIVC1, 30.25% for cIVC2, and 1.14 cm for IVCmin. Furthermore, the gray zone for cIVC2 was 30.72 to 38.32% and included 23.2% of spontaneously breathing patients, while 17.01 to 25.93% for cIVC1 comprising 44.6% of mechanically ventilated patients. Multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated that cIVC was an independent predictor of volume assessment for patients after surgery irrespective of breathing modes.
conclusionIVC respiratory variation is validated in predicting patients' volume responsiveness after abdominal surgery irrespective of the respiratory modes. However, cIVC or IVCmin in spontaneously breathing patients was superior to cIVC in mechanically ventilated patients in terms of clinical utility, with few subjects in the gray zone for the volume responsiveness appraisal.
trial registrationChiCTR-INR-17013093 . Initial registration date was 24/10/2017.
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.