Fluid responsiveness assessment using inferior vena cava collapsibility among spontaneously breathing patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis / Evaluación de la capacidad de respuesta de fluidos mediante el colapso de la vena cava inferior en pacientes que respiran espontáneamente: revisión sistemática y metaanálisis

Objective To synthesize the evidence about diagnostic accuracy of inferior vena cava collapsibility (IVCc) in prediction of fluid responsiveness among spontaneously breathing patients. Design Systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies. Setting Intensive care units or emergency departments. Patients and participants spontaneously breathing patients with indication for fluid bolus administration. Interventions A search was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE. We included studies assessing IVCc accuracy for fluid responsiveness assessment with a standard method for cardiac output measure as index test. Main variables of interest General information (year, setting, cutoffs, standard method), sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiving operator characteristics curve (AUROC). Risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS 2 tool. We obtained the pooled sensitivity, specificity and summary ROC curve, with estimated confidence intervals from a bivariate model. We also calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios and developed a Fagon nomogram. Result Eight studies were included with 497 patients. Overall, the studies presented a high risk of bias. IVCc sensitivity was 63% (95% CI – 46–78%) and specificity 83% (95% CI – 76–87%). Despite moderate accuracy of IVCc (SROC 0.83, 95% CI – 0.80–0.86), post-test probability of being fluid responsive based on a 50% pre-test probability led to considerable misclassification. Conclusions IVCc had moderate accuracy for fluid responsiveness assessment in spontaneously breathing patients and should not be used in isolation for this purpose (AU)

Objetivo Sintetizar la evidencia sobre la precisión diagnóstica de la colapsabilidad de la vena cava inferior (cVCI) en la predicción de la respuesta a los líquidos en pacientes que respiran espontáneamente. Diseño Revisión sistemática de estudios de precisión diagnóstica. Ámbito Unidades de cuidados intensivos o servicios de urgencias. Pacientes o participantes Pacientes con respiración espontánea con indicación de administración de bolos de líquidos. Intervenciones Se realizó una búsqueda en MEDLINE y EMBASE. Se incluyeron los estudios que evaluaban la precisión de la cVCI con un método estándar para medir el gasto cardíaco como prueba índice. Variables de interés principales Información general (año, entorno, puntos de corte, método estándar), sensibilidad, especificidad y área bajo curva. El riesgo de sesgo se evaluó con la herramienta QUADAS2. Obtuvimos la sensibilidad combinada, la especificidad y la curva ROC resumida, con intervalos de confianza (IC) estimados a partir de un modelo bivariado. Resultados Se incluyeron 8 estudios con 497 pacientes. La sensibilidad de la cVCI fue del 63% (IC95%: 46-78%) y la especificidad del 83% (IC95%: 76-87%). A pesar de la precisión moderada de cVCI (SROC: 0,83; IC95%: 0,80-0,86), la probabilidad posterior a la prueba de responder a los fluidos basada en una probabilidad anterior al 50% dio lugar a una clasificación errónea considerable. Conclusiones La cVCI tuvo una exactitud moderada para la evaluación de la respuesta a los líquidos en pacientes que respiran espontáneamente y no debe usarse de forma aislada para este propósito (AU)

Fluid responsiveness assessment using inferior vena cava collapsibility among spontaneously breathing patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the evidence about diagnostic accuracy of inferior vena cava collapsibility (IVCc) in prediction of fluid responsiveness among spontaneously breathing patients. DESIGN: Systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies. SETTING: Intensive care units or emergency departments. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: spontaneously breathing patients with indication for fluid bolus administration. INTERVENTIONS: A search was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE. We included studies assessing IVCc accuracy for fluid responsiveness assessment with a standard method for cardiac output measure as index test. MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST: General information (year, setting, cutoffs, standard method), sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiving operator characteristics curve (AUROC). Risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS 2 tool. We obtained the pooled sensitivity, specificity and summary ROC curve, with estimated confidence intervals from a bivariate model. We also calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios and developed a Fagon nomogram. RESULTS: Eight studies were included with 497 patients. Overall, the studies presented a high risk of bias. IVCc sensitivity was 63% (95% CI - 46-78%) and specificity 83% (95% CI - 76-87%). Despite moderate accuracy of IVCc (SROC 0.83, 95% CI - 0.80-0.86), post-test probability of being fluid responsive based on a 50% pre-test probability led to considerable misclassification. CONCLUSIONS: IVCc had moderate accuracy for fluid responsiveness assessment in spontaneously breathing patients and should not be used in isolation for this purpose.