Journal article
Prospective comparison of noninvasive, bedside ultrasound methods for assessing central venous pressure.
- Uthoff H Angiology, University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland.
- Siegemund M Anesthesia and Intensive Care, University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland.
- Aschwanden M Angiology, University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland.
- Hunziker L Medical Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland.
- Fabbro T Clinical Trial Unit, University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland.
- Baumann U Regional Hospital Center, Muensingen, Switzerland.
- Jaeger KA Angiology, University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland.
- Imfeld S Angiology, University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland.
- Staub D Angiology, University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland.
- 2012-06-05
Published in:
- Ultraschall in der Medizin (Stuttgart, Germany : 1980). - 2012
Aged
Blood Pressure Determination
Central Venous Pressure
Female
Forearm
Humans
Intensive Care Units
Jugular Veins
Male
Middle Aged
Point-of-Care Systems
Predictive Value of Tests
Prospective Studies
Ultrasonography
Veins
Vena Cava, Inferior
English
PURPOSE
To prospectively evaluate the accuracy of noninvasive central venous pressure (CVP) assessment by compression ultrasound of a forearm vein (CUS), inferior vena cava (IVC-C) and internal jugular vein collapsibility (IJV-C) compared to invasive CVP measurement (invCVP) as the gold standard.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
CUS, IVC-C and IJV-C were performed in a random sequence in 81 consecutive intensive care patients with simultaneous invCVP monitoring. Examiners were blinded to invCVP and previous examinations.
RESULTS
Median invCVP was 12.0 mmHg (range 1 - 23). CUS, IVC-C and IJV-C could be obtained in 89 %, 95 % and 100 % of cases, respectively, within a median time of 188 sec [IQR 125; 270], 133 sec [IQR 100; 211] and 60 sec [IQR 50; 109], respectively. The Spearman correlation coefficient between invCVP and CUS, IVC-C, and IJV-C was 0.485 95 %-CI [0.25; 0.65], -0.186 [-0.42; 0.07], and -0.408 [-0.59; -0.18], respectively. The median absolute difference between CUS and invCVP was 3 mmHg [IQR 2; 6.75]. CVP was categorized as low (< 7 mmHg; collapsibility > 0.6), normal (7 - 12 mmHg; collapsibility 0.6 - 0.2) and high (> 12 mmHg; collapsibility < 0.2) as prespecified. The proportions of identical CVP classifications compared to invCVP were 61.4% 95%-CI [49.3%; 72.4%] with CUS, 48.7% [37.4%; 60%] with IVC-C and 51.3% [40.3%; 62.3%] with IJV-C (p > 0.10 for all pair-wise comparisons).
CONCLUSION
The overall ability of CUS, IVC-C and IJV-C to assess invCVP was only moderate. CUS seems to be the preferable method if absolute CVP values are needed. IJV-C seems to be the fastest and most easily acquirable method, and thus may be especially valuable in emergency rooms.
To prospectively evaluate the accuracy of noninvasive central venous pressure (CVP) assessment by compression ultrasound of a forearm vein (CUS), inferior vena cava (IVC-C) and internal jugular vein collapsibility (IJV-C) compared to invasive CVP measurement (invCVP) as the gold standard.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
CUS, IVC-C and IJV-C were performed in a random sequence in 81 consecutive intensive care patients with simultaneous invCVP monitoring. Examiners were blinded to invCVP and previous examinations.
RESULTS
Median invCVP was 12.0 mmHg (range 1 - 23). CUS, IVC-C and IJV-C could be obtained in 89 %, 95 % and 100 % of cases, respectively, within a median time of 188 sec [IQR 125; 270], 133 sec [IQR 100; 211] and 60 sec [IQR 50; 109], respectively. The Spearman correlation coefficient between invCVP and CUS, IVC-C, and IJV-C was 0.485 95 %-CI [0.25; 0.65], -0.186 [-0.42; 0.07], and -0.408 [-0.59; -0.18], respectively. The median absolute difference between CUS and invCVP was 3 mmHg [IQR 2; 6.75]. CVP was categorized as low (< 7 mmHg; collapsibility > 0.6), normal (7 - 12 mmHg; collapsibility 0.6 - 0.2) and high (> 12 mmHg; collapsibility < 0.2) as prespecified. The proportions of identical CVP classifications compared to invCVP were 61.4% 95%-CI [49.3%; 72.4%] with CUS, 48.7% [37.4%; 60%] with IVC-C and 51.3% [40.3%; 62.3%] with IJV-C (p > 0.10 for all pair-wise comparisons).
CONCLUSION
The overall ability of CUS, IVC-C and IJV-C to assess invCVP was only moderate. CUS seems to be the preferable method if absolute CVP values are needed. IJV-C seems to be the fastest and most easily acquirable method, and thus may be especially valuable in emergency rooms.
- Language
-
- English
- Open access status
- closed
- Identifiers
-
- DOI 10.1055/s-0031-1299506
- PMID 22660962
- Persistent URL
- https://folia.unifr.ch/global/documents/124952
Statistics
Document views: 18
File downloads: