Why the study?
The authors studied the relationship between IVC collapsibility and common carotid artery corrected flow time change in healthy volunteers during preload challenges.
Do inferior vena cava collapsibility and other venous measures correlate with stroke volume augmentation (measured by carotid corrected flow time change) during preload challenges in healthy volunteers?
Do inferior vena cava collapsibility and other venous measures correlate with stroke volume augmentation (measured by carotid corrected flow time change) during preload challenges in healthy volunteers?
In euvolemic healthy volunteers, supine inferior vena cava collapsibility varies widely and does not correlate with preload responsiveness measured by carotid artery flow time changes, suggesting strict IVC collapse thresholds may mislabel fluid responsiveness.
(1) Background: The inspiratory collapse of the inferior vena cava (IVC), a non-invasive surrogate for right atrial pressure, is often used to predict whether a patient will augment stroke volume (SV) in response to a preload challenge. There is a correlation between changing stroke volume (SV∆) and corrected flow time of the common carotid artery (ccFT∆). (2) Objective: We studied the relationship between IVC collapsibility and ccFT∆ in healthy volunteers during preload challenges. (3) Methods: A prospective, observational, pilot study in euvolemic, healthy volunteers with no cardiovascular history was undertaken in a local physiology lab. Using a tilt-table, we studied two degrees of preload augmentation from (a) supine to 30-degrees head-down and (b) fully-upright to 30-degrees head down. In the supine position, % of IVC collapse with respiration, sphericity index and portal vein pulsatility was calculated. The common carotid artery Doppler pulse was continuously captured using a wireless, wearable ultrasound system. (4) Results: Fourteen subjects were included. IVC % collapse with respiration ranged between 10% and 84% across all subjects. Preload responsiveness was defined as an increase in ccFT∆ of at least 7 milliseconds. A total of 79% (supine baseline) and 100% (head-up baseline) of subjects were preload-responsive. No supine venous measures (including IVC % collapse) were significantly related to ccFT∆. (5) Conclusions: From head-up baseline, 100% of healthy subjects were ‘preload-responsive’ as per the ccFT∆. Based on the 42% and 25% IVC collapse thresholds in the supine position, only 50% and 71% would have been labeled ‘preload-responsive’.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kenny et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: