Correlation of Ultrasonographic Measurement of Inferior Vena Cava Collapsibility Index with Central Venous Pressure in Diagnosis and Management of Neonatal Shock

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Pediatrics, G.S.V.M Medical College, Kanpur

2 Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Government Medical College, Kannauj

Abstract

Background: Neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)Conventionally, Central Venous Pressure (CVP) monitoring has been
used by intensivists to measure intravascular volume. However, it is an invasive procedure resulting in many complications. Non-invasive ultrasonographic measurement of inferior vena cava collapsibility index (IVC-CI) is a promising alternative. Therefore, this study wasconducted to evaluate the correlation of central venous pressure with IVC-CIand establish the cut off valuesfor IVC-CI to diagnose and manage neonatal shock.
Methods: The current research was a prospective longitudinal study.All sick neonates requiring intensive hemodynamic monitoring were enrolled in the study and umbilical vein catheterization was performedto measure CVP. IVC diameters and IVC-CI were measured using ultrasound. Based on CVP, the patients were classified into three categories: hypovolemic (CVP8 cmH2O) and managed with intravenous fluid boluses and/or inotropes, accordingly. CVP and IVC-CI were again recorded after the intervention and compared with the previous values.
Results: A total of 76(62.3%) males and 46 (37.7%) females were included in the study with a mean age of 27.16±17.5 years. There was a strong negative correlation,which was statistically significant, between CVP and IVC-CI (r= -0.913, n=122, P<0.001). After luid resuscitation in the hypovolemic group, CVP improved from 2.31±0.92 to 5.88±1.79 cmH2O and IVC-CI changed from 62.39±6.005 to 33.02±2.64% which was statistically signi icant(P<0.001). After the administration of inotropes in the hypervolemic group, CVP dropped from 10.86±9.07 to 9.07±1.85cmH2O and IVC-CI changed from 11.27±4.71 to 24.3±13.3% which was again statistically signi icant(P<0.001). The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis indicated that the IVC-CI cut-off of 55% predicted CVP 8 cmH2O with 91.1% sensitivity, 83.2% speci icity, 71.8% positive predictive value and 50.6% negative predictive value.
Conclusion: The obtained results revealed an inverse correlation between CVP and IVC-CI, and it was concluded that IVC-CI can provide a useful guide in the diagnosis and management of shock in sick newborns.

Keywords

References

1. Gleason CA, Devaskar SU. Avery’s diseases of the newborn. 9th еd. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2012.
2. Kliegman RM, Behrman RE, Jenson HB, Stanton BM.Nelson textbook of pediatrics e-book. New York:
Elsevier Health Sciences; 2016.
3. Cloherty JP, Eichenwald EC, Stark AR. Manual of neonatal care. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams &
Wilkins; 2012.
4. McIntyre LA, Hebert PC, Fergusson D, Cook DJ, Aziz A. A survey of Canadian intensivists’ resuscitation
practices in early septic shock. Crit Care. 2007;11(4): R74
5. Ilyas A, Ishtiaq W, Assad S, Ghazanfar H, Mansoor S, Haris M,et al. Correlation of IVC diameter and
collapsibility index with central venous pressure in the assessment of intravascular volume in critically
Ill patients. Cureus.2017; 9(2):e1025.
6. Muqloo M M, Malik S, Rubeena A Echocardiographic Inferior Vena Cava Measurement As An Alternative to Central Venous Pressure Measurement in Neonates. Indian J Pediatr. 2017 Oct;84(10):751-
756
7. Babaie S, Behzad A, Mohammadpour M, Reisi M. A Comparison between the Bedside Sonographic
Measurements of the Inferior Vena Cava Indices and the Central Venous Pressure While Assessing theDecreased Intravascular Volume in Children.AdvBiomed Res 2018;7:97
8. Lwanga SK, Lemeshow S, World Health Organization. Sample size determination in health studies: a practical manual. Geneva: World HealthOrganization; 1991
9. Thanakitcharu P, Charoenwut M, Siriwiwatanakul N. Inferior vena cava diameter and collapsibility index:a practical non-invasive evaluation of intravascular fluid volume in critically-ill patients.J Med Assoc Thai.2013;96(Suppl 3):S14-22.
10. Nagdev AD, Merchant RC, Tirado-Gonzalez A, Sisson CA, Murphy MC. Emergency department bedside
ultrasonographic measurement of the caval index for noninvasive determination of low central venous
pressure.Ann Emerg Med.2010;55(3):290-5.
11. Iwamoto Y, Tamai A, Kohno K, Masutani S, Okada N, Senzaki H. Usefulness of respiratory variation of
inferior vena cava diameter for estimation of elevated central venous pressure in children with cardiovascular disease.Circ J.2011;75(5):1209-14.
12. Garg M, Sen J, Goyal S, Chaudhry D. Comparative evaluation of central venous pressure and
sonographic inferior vena cava variability in assessing fluid responsiveness in septic shock.Indian J Crit Care Med. 2016;20(12):708-13
13. Sato Y, Kawataki M, Hirakawa A, Toyoshima K, Kato T, Itani Y, et al.The diameter of theinferior vena cava provides a noninvasive way of calculating central venous pressure in neonates. Acta Paediatr.
2013;102(6):e241-6.
Iranian Journal of Neonatology
Volume 11, Issue 3
August 2020
Pages 86-91

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics