↓ Skip to main content

The caval index: an adequate non-invasive ultrasound parameter to predict fluid responsiveness in the emergency department?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The caval index: an adequate non-invasive ultrasound parameter to predict fluid responsiveness in the emergency department?
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2253-14-114
Pubmed ID
Authors

Silke de Valk, Tycho Joan Olgers, Mirjam Holman, Farouq Ismael, Jack Johannes Maria Ligtenberg, Jan Cornelis ter Maaten

Abstract

Fluid therapy is the first important step in patients with signs of shock but assessment of the volume status is difficult and invasive measurements are not readily available in the emergency department. We have investigated whether the respiratory variation in diameter of the inferior vena cava is a reliable parameter to predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneous breathing emergency department patients with signs of shock. All patients admitted to the emergency department during a 15 week period were screened for signs of shock. If the attending physician planned to give a fluid challenge, the caval index was determined by transabdominal ultrasonography in supine position. Immediately afterwards 500 ml NaCl 0.9% was administered in 15 minutes and the clinical response was observed. An adequate response was defined as an increase in systolic blood pressure of at least 10 mm Hg. Based on this definition patients were divided into responders and non-responders. After selection a total number of 45 patients was included. A low caval index (< 36.5%) in patients with signs of shock reliably predicted the absence of an adequate response to fluid therapy (negative predictive value 92%). The positive predictive value of a high caval index was much lower (48%) despite the fact that responders had a significantly higher pre-infusion caval index than non-responders (48.7% vs 31.8%, p 0.014). In spontaneously breathing patients with signs of shock in the emergency department, a high caval index (>36.5%) does not reliably predict fluid responsiveness in our study, while a low caval index (<36.5%) makes fluid responsiveness unlikely. An explanation for the absence of a blood pressure response in the group of patients with a low high caval index might be that these patients represent a group requiring more volume therapy than 500 ml.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 16 18%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Master 11 12%
Other 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 17 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 72%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Unspecified 2 2%
Computer Science 1 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 17 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 December 2014.
All research outputs
#19,292,491
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#1,050
of 1,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#265,172
of 361,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#22
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,574 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 361,884 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.