Vnitr Lek 2024, 70(4):255-259

Assessment of the fluid status and fluid therapy optimization in the emergency department: Is inferior vena cava a reliable marker?

Jiří Müller, Martin Matějovič
I. interní klinika Lékařské fakulty UK a FN Plzeň

Infusion therapy, in terms of fluid resuscitation, is without a doubt one of the most common therapeutic intervention in the management of an acutely ill patient. Despite the growing body of evidence showing potentially harmful effects of non-indicated fluid administration, this "fluid-reflex" remains a common practice in the Emergency department. One of the reasons for this is that fluid status assessment, based just on the clinical findings, is generally difficult if the patient does not have extreme fluid balance disturbances. Inferior Vena Cava ultrasound provides a relatively quick and simple answer to the basic clinical question: "Does my patient need fluids or decongestion?" However, this seemingly straightforward information is redeemed by several limitations which must be considered assessing the hemodynamics of medical emergencies.

Keywords: fluid status, point-of-care ultrasound, inferior vena cava, fluid therapy, fluid tolerance, fluid responsiveness, fluid balance, emergency department, volume status.

Accepted: June 5, 2024; Published: June 20, 2024  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Müller J, Matějovič M. Assessment of the fluid status and fluid therapy optimization in the emergency department: Is inferior vena cava a reliable marker? Vnitr Lek. 2024;70(4):255-259.
Download citation

References

  1. Monnet X, Teboul J-L. Assessment of fluid responsiveness: recent advances. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2018;24(3):190-5. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/mcc.0000000000000501. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  2. Ansari BM, Zochios V, Falter F, et al. Physiological controversies and methods used to determine fluid responsiveness: a qualitative systematic review. Anaesthesia. 2016;71(1):94-105. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/anae.13246. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  3. Malbrain MLNG, Marik PE, Witters I et al. Fluid overload, de-resuscitation, and outcomes in critically ill or injured patients: a systematic review with suggestions for clinical practice. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2014;46(5):361-80. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5603/ait.2014.0060. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  4. Vincent J-L, Sakr Y, Sprung CL, et al. Sepsis in European intensive care units: Results of the SOAP study. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(2):344-53. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000194725.48928.3a Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  5. Kattan E, Castro R, Miralles-Aguiar F, et al. The emerging concept of fluid tolerance: A position paper. J Crit Care. 2022;71(154070):154070. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2022.154070. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  6. Magder S. Volume and its relationship to cardiac output and venous return. Crit Care. 2016;20(1). Available from DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-016-1438-7. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  7. Repessé X, Charron C, Fink J et al. Value and determinants of the mean systemic filling pressure in critically ill patients. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2015;309(5):H1003-7. Available from DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.00413.2015. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  8. Tansey EA, Montgomery LEA, Quinn JG, et al. Understanding basic vein physiology and venous blood pressure through simple physical assessments. Adv Physiol Educ. 2019;43(3):423-9. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00182.2018 Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  9. Marik PE, Cavallazzi R. Does the central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? An updated meta-analysis and a plea for some common sense. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(7):1774-81. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0b013e31828a25fd. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  10. Corl K, Napoli AM, Gardiner F. Bedside sonographic measurement of the inferior vena cava caval index is a poor predictor of fluid responsiveness in emergency department patients. Emerg Med Australas. 2012;24(5):534-9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-6723.2012.01596.x. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  11. Airapetian N, Maizel J, Alyamani O, et al. Does inferior vena cava respiratory variability predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients? Crit Care. 2015;19(1). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-015-1100-9. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  12. de Valk S, Olgers TJ, Holman, et al. The caval index: an adequate non-invasive ultrasound parameter to predict fluid responsiveness in the emergency department? BMC Anesthesiol. 2014;14(1). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2253-14-114. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  13. Corl KA, George NR, Romanoff J, et al. Inferior vena cava collapsibility detects fluid responsiveness among spontaneously breathing critically-ill patients. J Crit Care. 2017; 41:130-7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2017. 05. 008. Go to original source...
  14. Lu N, Xi X, Jiang L, et al. Exploring the best predictors of fluid responsiveness in patients with septic shock. Am J Emerg Med. 2017;35(9):1258-61. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2017. 03. 052. Go to original source...
  15. Barbier C, Loubières Y, Schmit C, et al. Respiratory changes in inferior vena cava diameter are helpful in predicting fluid responsiveness in ventilated septic patients. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30(9):1740-6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-004-2259-8. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  16. Vignon P, Repessé X, Bégot E, et al. Comparison of echocardiographic indices used to predict fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(8):1022-32. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201604-0844oc. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  17. Vellinga NAR, Ince C, Boerma EC. Elevated central venous pressure is associated with impairment of microcirculatory blood flow in sepsis: a hypothesis generating post hoc analysis. BMC Anesthesiol. 2013;13(1). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2253-13-17. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  18. Beaubien-Souligny W, Rola P, Haycock K, et al. Quantifying systemic congestion with Point-Of-Care ultrasound: development of the venous excess ultrasound grading system. Ultrasound J. 2020;12(1). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13089-020-00163-w Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  19. Prager R, Argaiz E, Pratte M, et al. Doppler identified venous congestion in septic shock: protocol for an international, multi-centre prospective cohort study (Andromeda-VEXUS). BMJ Open. 2023;13(7):e074843. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-074843. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...




Vnitřní lékařství

Madam, Sir,
please be aware that the website on which you intend to enter, not the general public because it contains technical information about medicines, including advertisements relating to medicinal products. This information and communication professionals are solely under §2 of the Act n.40/1995 Coll. Is active persons authorized to prescribe or supply (hereinafter expert).
Take note that if you are not an expert, you run the risk of danger to their health or the health of other persons, if you the obtained information improperly understood or interpreted, and especially advertising which may be part of this site, or whether you used it for self-diagnosis or medical treatment, whether in relation to each other in person or in relation to others.

I declare:

  1. that I have met the above instruction
  2. I'm an expert within the meaning of the Act n.40/1995 Coll. the regulation of advertising, as amended, and I am aware of the risks that would be a person other than the expert input to these sites exhibited


No

Yes

If your statement is not true, please be aware
that brings the risk of danger to their health or the health of others.