ArticleScientific reports2026
Validation of the inferior vena cava collapsibility as a predictive marker of fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03780660 (Diagnostic Accuracy of the Central Venous Pressure), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Diagnostic Accuracy of the Central Venous Pressure (CVP) Variation to Predict Fluid Responsiveness in Spontaneously Breathing Patients
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a proposed rule for estimating central venous pressure from inferior vena cava dynamics: a clinical prediction model study.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a previous derivation cohort, we found that inferior vena cava collapsibility (cIVC) thresholds of ≥ 33% during non-standardised breathing (cIVC-ns) and ≥ 44% during a standardised breathing manoeuvre (cIVC-st) identified fluid responsiveness (FR). The aim of this study was to validate these findings through a secondary analysis of a prospective validation cohort. We measured cIVC-ns and cIVC-st in spontaneously breathing adult patients in a sub-xiphoid, long-axis view, using the two-dimensional mode, at 4 cm from the cavo-atrial junction. An increase in the subaortic time-velocity integral during a passive leg raising test (∆VTI) ≥ 10% was used to define FR. Among 61 intensive care unit (ICU) patients included, a cIVC-ns ≥ 33% predicted FR with a sensitivity and a specificity of 84% and 83%, respectively. A cIVC-st ≥ 44% predicted FR with a sensitivity and a specificity of 94% and 87%, respectively. A cIVC-ns ≥ 33% and a cIVC-st ≥ 44% misclassified 16.4% and 8.2% of the patients respectively (p = 0.06). Measuring cIVC is a reliable, non-invasive tool to predict FR in pontaneously breathing patients admitted to ICU. However, the clinical added value of a standardised breathing manoeuvre to improve its diagnostic accuracy warrants further investigation in dedicated studies.Trial registration: Name of the registry: Diagnostic Accuracy of the Central Venous Pressure (CVP) Variation to Predict Fluid Responsiveness in Spontaneously Breathing Patients (VPVC). Trial registration number: NCT03780660.
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.