Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from Critical Care and BioMed Central.

This article is part of the supplement: 30th International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine

Poster presentation

Distensibility index of inferior vena cava diameter in ventilated septic and trauma patients with shock

N Parenti1*, D Sangiorgi2, A Pigna3, C Coniglio4, F Cancellieri4, G Gordini4, R Melotti3 and G Di Nino3

  • * Corresponding author: N Parenti

Author Affiliations

1 Hospital Santa Maria della Scaletta Imola, Bologna, Italy

2 Università, Bologna, Italy

3 Policlinico Sant'Orsola, Bologna, Italy

4 Ospedale Maggiore, Bologna, Italy

For all author emails, please log on.

Critical Care 2010, 14(Suppl 1):P125  doi:10.1186/cc8357

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://ccforum.com/content/14/S1/P125


Published:1 March 2010

© 2010 BioMed Central Ltd.

Introduction

We evaluated the distensibility index of the inferior vena cava (dIVC%) in ventilated septic and trauma patients with shock before and after fluid therapy. There are no data on this index in patients in shock post trauma.

Methods

This is a prospective study conducted in two ICUs between September 2008 and May 2009. Inclusion criteria were: shock (systolic arterial pressure below 90 mmHg and/or perfusion of vasopressor amines) related to severe sepsis or to trauma. The inferior vena cava diameter at end-expiration (IVCDmax) and at end-inspiration (IVCDmin) was measured by echocardiography using a subcostal approach. The distensibility index of the IVC was the ratio of IVCDmax - IVCDmin/IVCDmin expressed as a percentage (dIVC%). Cardiac index (CI) was calculated by analysis of the arterial pressure wave (FloTrac/Vigileo; Edwards). Measurements were performed at baseline and after a volume expansion using 7 ml/kg colloid and 20 ml/kg crystalloid for septic and trauma patients, respectively. Patients were separated into responders (increase in CI ≥15%) and nonresponders (NR) after fluid therapy. The Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney tests were used to compare paired values. Statistical significance was tested at an α level of 0.05.

Results

Eleven patients in shock (five septic, six trauma; six responder, five NR) were included. The median age was 62 years (range 28 to 78 years) and mean SAPS II score was 52 ± 30 SD. There were no significant differences between responders (R) and NR regarding age, gender, and risk scores. Among all patients, at baseline, median CI and dIVC% were 2.6 l/minute/m2 and 29%, respectively. Volume expansion significantly increased the median CI from 2.6 (2 to 3.3) to 3 (2.1 to 4) l/minute/m2 (P = 0.005) and decreased dIVC% from 29.4% to 12.6% (P = 0.003). The median dIVC% in R was higher than NR: 31.3% vs 17% (P < 0.05). Fluid therapy decreased more dIVC% in R than in NR: R 31% to 12% (P = 0.03), NR 17% to 12% (P = 0.04). The dIVC% showed similar trend in both groups of septic shock (SS) and trauma shock (TS) patients before and after fluid therapy: dIVC% 27% in SS and 24% in TS before fluid therapy; 15% in SS and 11% in TS after therapy.

Conclusions

Our data suggest that dIVC% is a sensitive index of fluid responsive ness in septic and trauma patients in shock. Limitations: few patients.

References

  1. Barbier C, et al.: Respiratory changes in inferior vena cava diameter are helpful in predicting fluid responsiveness in ventilated septic patients.

    Intensive Care Med 2004, 30:1740-1746. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL