ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia
Diagnostic accuracy of subclavian vein versus inferior vena cava collapsibility index for predicting postinduction hypotension: An observational study.
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Comment on "Diagnostic accuracy of subclavian vein versus inferior vena cava collapsibility index for predicting postinduction hypotension: An observational study".Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
- Reply to Comment on "Diagnostic accuracy of subclavian vein versus inferior vena cava collapsibility index for predicting postinduction hypotension: An observational study".Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hypotension following induction of general anesthesia (GA) is commonly observed. Ultrasound (US) measurement of collapsibility index (CI) of the inferior vena cava (IVC) for predicting postinduction hypotension has been studied. As there is limited data available comparing the diagnostic accuracy of subclavian vein (SCV) versus IVC-CI, we performed this observational study. Methods: A total of 132 adult patients scheduled for elective surgery under GA were enrolled. US measurements of three readings of maximum and minimum diameters of SCV and IVC were recorded during both quiet and deep breathing, and the mean of three values was calculated. CI was derived using the formula: (dmax - dmin) × 100/dmax. Subsequently, GA was administered using standard technique, irrespective of the findings of SCV and IVC measurements. The administered drugs and dosage were recorded. Hemodynamic parameters were collected at baseline and then at every minute for the first 20 min. The primary objective was to compare the diagnostic accuracies of SCV-CI and IVC-CI for prediction of postinduction hypotension during quiet breathing. The secondary objectives were to compare the diagnostic accuracies during deep breathing and find the correlation between IVC-CI and SC-CI during quiet and deep breathing, incidence of hypotension, and time required to acquire US images. Results: Fifty-seven patients developed postinduction hypotension. During quiet breathing, SCV-CI ≥10% had a sensitivity of 68% and specificity of 56% (area under curve [AUC] [95% confidence interval {CI}] of 0.659 [0.56-0.75]; Conclusion: Both SCV-CI and IVC-CI were found to have good and comparable diagnostic accuracy for the prediction of postinduction hypotension. We also found a significant positive correlation between SCV-CI and IVC-CI. In comparison to IVC, US scanning of SCV took lesser time to acquire the images.
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.