Key result
Pediatric clinical shock is linked to ~32% smaller maximum IVC diameters versus euvolemic controls.
Why the study?
Accurate assessment of intravascular volume status in pediatric shock remains challenging and often relies on subjective or invasive methods.
Does bedside ultrasonography of IVC diameter and IVC/Ao ratio accurately assess intravascular volume status in children with clinical shock compared to euvolemic controls?
Case-Control (n=120)
Single-blind
No
Does bedside ultrasonography of IVC diameter and IVC/Ao ratio accurately assess intravascular volume status in children with clinical shock compared to euvolemic controls?
Mean Difference: 0.47
Absolute Event Rate: 0.99% vs 1.46%
p-value: p=<0.001
Ultrasound-derived measurements of IVC diameter and IVC/Ao ratio are reliable non-invasive indicators of hypovolemia in pediatric shock.
May aid non-invasive volume assessment in pediatric shock; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before adoption.
BackgroundAccurate assessment of intravascular volume status in pediatric shock remains a clinical challenge, often relying on subjective and invasive methods. Bedside ultrasonography of the inferior vena cava (IVC) has emerged as a promising, non-invasive modality to estimate volume status. This study aimed to evaluate the IVC diameter and IVC-to-aortic (IVC/Ao) ratio as objective indicators of hypovolemia in children using ultrasound. Objectives: To obtain and analyze data on IVC diameter and IVC/Ao ratio measured by sonography for assessing intravascular volume status in infants and children with clinical shock compared to euvolemic controls. MethodsIn this prospective observational study, 60 children aged 1 month to 18 years admitted with clinical shock were compared with 60 age-matched euvolemic controls. Sociodemographic characteristics, including age and sex, were recorded. Maximum sagittal IVC diameter, transverse aortic diameter, and IVC/Ao ratio were measured using bedside ultrasound. ResultsThe mean age of participants was comparable; the male-to-female ratio was 0.6:1 in the shock group and 1:1.2 in controls. The mean IVC diameter was significantly lower in the shock group (0.99±0.45 cm) than in controls (1.46±0.52 cm; p<0.001), indicating intravascular hypovolemia. The IVC/Ao ratio was also reduced in shock cases (0.65±0.10) compared to controls (0.98±0.09; p<0.001). No significant difference was observed in aortic diameters. ConclusionUltrasound-derived measurements of IVC diameter and IVC/Ao ratio are reliable non-invasive indicators of hypovolemia in pediatric shock. RecommendationsBedside ultrasound should be integrated into the routine evaluation of children with suspected shock to improve early detection and guide fluid management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vidhyadhar et al. (2025) conducted a case-control in Pediatric shock (n=120). Clinical shock vs. Age-matched euvolemic controls was evaluated on Maximum sagittal IVC diameter (MD 0.47 cm, p=<0.001). Pediatric patients in clinical shock had a significantly lower mean maximum sagittal IVC diameter (0.99 cm vs 1.46 cm) and IVC-to-aortic ratio (0.65 vs 0.98) compared to euvolemic controls.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: