Key result
Inferior vena cava assessment via the right upper quadrant window was faster (median 23 vs 52 seconds, P=0.0045) and had higher success (100% vs 80%) than the subcostal window in term pregnant women.
Why the study?
Assessing the inferior vena cava using the subcostal window can be challenging in pregnant women due to the gravid uterus, making the right upper quadrant transhepatic window a potential alternative.
Does the right upper quadrant ultrasound window improve inferior vena cava visualization and reduce acquisition time compared to the subcostal window in full-term pregnant women?
Cross-Sectional (n=30)
No
Does the right upper quadrant ultrasound window improve inferior vena cava visualization and reduce acquisition time compared to the subcostal window in full-term pregnant women?
The right upper quadrant ultrasound view is faster, easier, and provides better image quality for assessing the inferior vena cava in term pregnant women compared to the traditional subcostal view.
RUQ window may facilitate faster IVC assessment in term pregnancy; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before practice change.
Point-of-care ultrasound can be used at the bedside to assess the haemodynamic status and fluid responsiveness of a pregnant woman. Previous studies demonstrated that views from the apical and parasternal windows are readily obtainable in labouring women. However, using the subcostal window to assess the inferior vena cava can be challenging because of the gravid uterus. A potential alternative is the right upper quadrant transhepatic window. We sought to compare visualisation of the inferior vena cava via the subcostal and right upper quadrant windows, in full-term pregnant women. This was a prospective pilot study carried out in a tertiary academic obstetric centre. Thirty pregnant non-labouring women at full term were recruited. In each patient, the inferior vena cava was visualised through both the subcostal and the right upper quadrant windows. Time to acquire each image, acquisition success rates and ease of obtaining images were compared for both approaches. Image quality was then reviewed and rated by two independent expert reviewers. There was a significant difference in the time required to obtain each view; subcostal median (interquartile range): 52 (35–59) seconds, right upper quadrant median (interquartile range): 23 (11–55) seconds ( P=0.0045). Operator-defined successful image acquisition was 100% for the right upper quadrant window compared to 80% for the subcostal window. Ease of obtaining the view, as rated by the operator, was significantly easier in the right upper quadrant window compared to the subcostal window ( P <0.0001). Both reviewers independently rated image adequacy to be significantly greater in the right upper quadrant window (73% and 57%) compared to the subcostal window (40% and 10%) ( P=0.0213 and P=0.0005, respectively). Inter-rater agreement ranged between good (Cohen’s kappa coefficient 0.64) for right upper quadrant windows to fair (Cohen’s kappa coefficient 0.29) for subcostal windows. Inferior vena cava visualisation in term pregnant patients may take less time, be easier and provide better quality images when the right upper quadrant window is used compared to the subcostal window.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qasem et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Pregnancy (n=30). Right upper quadrant ultrasound window vs. Subcostal ultrasound window was evaluated on Time required to obtain each view (median seconds) (p=0.0045). Inferior vena cava assessment via the right upper quadrant window was faster (median 23 vs 52 seconds, P=0.0045) and had higher success (100% vs 80%) than the subcostal window in term pregnant women.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: