English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Respiratory variation of inferior vena cava is problematic in predicting fluid responsiveness in patients with right ventricular dysfunction. However, its effectiveness in patients with isolated left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ILVD) has not been reported. We aimed to explore whether inferior vena cava diameter distensibility index (dIVC) can predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated ILVD patients.    Methods  Patients admitted to the intensive care unit who were on controlled mechanical ventilation and in need of a fluid responsiveness assessment were screened for enrolment. Several echocardiographic parameters, including dIVC, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and LV outflow tract velocity–time integral (VTI) before and after passive leg raising (PLR) were collected. Patients with LV systolic dysfunction only (TAPSE ≥ 16 mm, LVEF < 50%) were considered to have isolated left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ILVD).    Results  One hundred and twenty-nine subjects were enrolled in this study, among them, 28 were labelled ILVD patients, and the remaining 101 were patients with normal LV function (NLVF). The value of dIVC in ILVD patients was as high as that in NLVF patients, (20% vs. 16%,  p  = 0.211). The ILVD group contained a much lower proportion of PLR responders than NLVF patients did (17.9% vs. 53.2%,  p  < 0.001). No correlation was detected between dIVC and ΔVTI in ILVD patients ( r  = 0.196,  p  = 0.309). dIVC was correlated with ΔVTI in NLVF patients ( r  = 0.722,  p  < 0.001), and the correlation was strengthened compared with that derived from all patients ( p  = 0.020). A receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that the area-under-the-curve (AUC) of dIVC for determining fluid responsiveness from ILVD patients was not statistically significant ( p  = 0.251). In NLVF patients, ROC analysis revealed an AUC of 0.918 (95% CI 0.858–0.978;  p  < 0.001), which was higher than the AUC derived from all patients ( p  = 0.033). Patients with LVEF below 40% had a lower ΔVTI and fewer PLR responders than those with LVEF 40–50% and LVEF above 50% ( p  < 0.001).    Conclusion  dIVC should be used with caution when critically ill patients on controlled mechanical ventilation display normal right ventricular function in combination with abnormal left ventricular systolic function.

annals of intensive care

Respiratory variations of inferior vena cava fail to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with isolated left ventricular dysfunction