RESUMO
The Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) is commonly utilized to evaluate fluid status in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU),with more recent emphasis on the study of venous congestion. It is predominantly measured via subcostal approach (SC) or trans-hepatic (TH) views, and automated border tracking (ABT) software has been introduced to facilitate its assessment. Prospective observational study on patients ventilated in pressure support ventilation (PSV) with 2 × 2 factorial design. Primary outcome was to evaluate interchangeability of measurements of the IVC and the distensibility index (DI) obtained using both M-mode and ABT, across both SC and TH. Statistical analyses comprised Bland-Altman assessments for mean bias, limits of agreement (LoA), and the Spearman correlation coefficients. IVC visualization was 100% successful via SC, while TH view was unattainable in 17.4% of cases. As compared to the M-mode, the IVC-DI obtained through ABT approach showed divergences in both SC (mean bias 5.9%, LoA -18.4% to 30.2%, ICC = 0.52) and TH window (mean bias 6.2%, LoA -8.0% to 20.4%, ICC = 0.67). When comparing the IVC-DI measures obtained in the two anatomical sites, accuracy improved with a mean bias of 1.9% (M-mode) and 1.1% (ABT), but LoA remained wide (M-mode: -13.7% to 17.5%; AI: -19.6% to 21.9%). Correlation was generally suboptimal (r = 0.43 to 0.60). In PSV ventilated patients, we found that IVC-DI calculated with M-mode is not interchangeable with ABT measurements. Moreover, the IVC-DI gathered from SC or TH view produces not comparable results, mainly in terms of precision.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Variation of inferior vena cava (IVC) is used to predict fluid-responsiveness, but the IVC visualization with standard sagittal approach (SC, subcostal) cannot be always achieved. In such cases, coronal trans-hepatic (TH) window may offer an alternative, but the interchangeability of IVC measurements in SC and TH is not fully established. Furthermore, artificial intelligence (AI) with automated border detection may be of clinical value but it needs validation. METHODS: Prospective observational validation study in mechanically ventilated patients with pressure-controlled mode. Primary outcome was the IVC distensibility (IVC-DI) in SC and TH imaging, with measurements taken both in M-Mode or with AI software. We calculated mean bias, limits of agreement (LoA), and intra-class correlation (ICC) coefficient. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were included. Feasibility rate was 87.9% and 81.8% for SC and TH visualization, respectively. Comparing imaging from the same anatomical site acquired with different modalities (M-Mode vs AI), we found the following IVC-DI differences: (1) SC: mean bias - 3.1%, LoA [- 20.1; 13.9], ICC = 0.65; (2) TH: mean bias - 2.0%, LoA [- 19.3; 15.4], ICC = 0.65. When comparing the results obtained from the same modality but from different sites (SC vs TH), IVC-DI differences were: (3) M-Mode: mean bias 1.1%, LoA [- 6.9; 9.1], ICC = 0.54; (4) AI: mean bias 2.0%, LoA [- 25.7; 29.7], ICC = 0.32. CONCLUSIONS: In patients mechanically ventilated, AI software shows good accuracy (modest overestimation) and moderate correlation as compared to M-mode assessment of IVC-DI, both for SC and TH windows. However, precision seems suboptimal with wide LoA. The comparison of M-Mode or AI between different sites yields similar results but with weaker correlation. Trial registration Reference protocol: 53/2022/PO, approved on 21/03/2022.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Assessment of the inferior vena cava (IVC) respiratory variation may be clinically useful for the estimation of fluid-responsiveness and venous congestion; however, imaging from subcostal (SC, sagittal) region is not always feasible. It is unclear if coronal trans-hepatic (TH) IVC imaging provides interchangeable results. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) with automated border tracking may be helpful as part of point-of-care ultrasound but it needs validation. METHODS: Prospective observational study conducted in spontaneously breathing healthy volunteers with assessment of IVC collapsibility (IVCc) in SC and TH imaging, with measures taken in M-mode or with AI software. We calculated mean bias and limits of agreement (LoA), and the intra-class correlation (ICC) coefficient with their 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Sixty volunteers were included; IVC was not visualized in five of them (n = 2, both SC and TH windows, 3.3%; n = 3 in TH approach, 5%). Compared with M-mode, AI showed good accuracy both for SC (IVCc: bias - 0.7%, LoA [- 24.9; 23.6]) and TH approach (IVCc: bias 3.7%, LoA [- 14.9; 22.3]). The ICC coefficients showed moderate reliability: 0.57 [0.36; 0.73] in SC, and 0.72 [0.55; 0.83] in TH. Comparing anatomical sites (SC vs TH), results produced by M-mode were not interchangeable (IVCc: bias 13.9%, LoA [- 18.1; 45.8]). When this evaluation was performed with AI, such difference became smaller: IVCc bias 7.7%, LoA [- 19.2; 34.6]. The correlation between SC and TH assessments was poor for M-mode (ICC = 0.08 [- 0.18; 0.34]) while moderate for AI (ICC = 0.69 [0.52; 0.81]). CONCLUSIONS: The use of AI shows good accuracy when compared with the traditional M-mode IVC assessment, both for SC and TH imaging. Although AI reduces differences between sagittal and coronal IVC measurements, results from these sites are not interchangeable.