↓ Skip to main content

Does inferior vena cava respiratory variability predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
59 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
189 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
300 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
Does inferior vena cava respiratory variability predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients?
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-1100-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Norair Airapetian, Julien Maizel, Ola Alyamani, Yazine Mahjoub, Emmanuel Lorne, Melanie Levrard, Nacim Ammenouche, Aziz Seydi, François Tinturier, Eric Lobjoie, Hervé Dupont, Michel Slama

Abstract

We have almost no information concerning the value of inferior vena cava (IVC) respiratory variations in spontaneously breathing ICU patients (SBP) to predict fluid responsiveness. SBP with clinical fluid need were included prospectively in the study. Echocardiography and Doppler ultrasound were used to record the aortic velocity-time integral (VTI), stroke volume (SV), cardiac output (CO) and IVC collapsibility index (cIVC) ((maximum diameter (IVCmax)- minimum diameter (IVCmin))/ IVCmax) at baseline, after a passive leg-raising maneuver (PLR) and after 500 ml of saline infusion. Fifty-nine patients (30 males and 29 females; 57 ± 18 years-old) were included in the study. Of these, 29 (49 %) were considered to be responders (≥10 % increase in CO after fluid infusion). There were no significant differences between responders and nonresponders at baseline, except for a higher aortic VTI in nonresponders (16 cm vs. 19 cm, p = 0.03). Responders had a lower baseline IVCmin than nonresponders (11 ± 5 mm vs. 14 ± 5 mm, p = 0.04) and more marked IVC variations (cIVC: 35 ± 16 vs. 27 ± 10 %, p = 0.04). Prediction of fluid-responsiveness using cIVC and IVCmax was low (area under the curve for cIVC at baseline 0.62 ± 0.07; 95 %, CI 0.49-0.74 and for IVCmax at baseline 0.62 ± 0.07; 95 % CI 0.49-0.75). In contrast, IVC respiratory variations >42 % in SBP demonstrated a high specificity (97 %) and a positive predictive value (90 %) to predict an increase in CO after fluid infusion. In SBP with suspected hypovolemia, vena cava size and respiratory variability do not predict fluid responsiveness. In contrast, a cIVC >42 % may predict an increase in CO after fluid infusion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 X users 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 300 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 298 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 52 17%
Researcher 44 15%
Student > Postgraduate 34 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 8%
Student > Master 19 6%
Other 66 22%
Unknown 62 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 195 65%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 2%
Engineering 4 1%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 <1%
Other 20 7%
Unknown 69 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 11 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,012,320
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#789
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,855
of 395,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#49
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
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 395,421 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.