Acute and Critical Care

Original Articles

Cardiology
Diagnostic accuracy of left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral versus inferior vena cava collapsibility index in predicting post-induction hypotension during general anesthesia: an observational study: Vibhuti Sharma, Arti Sharma, Arvind Sethi, Jyoti Pathania; Acute Crit Care. 2024;39(1):117-126. Published online February 23, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4266/acc.2023.00913

553 View
37 Download

Abstract PDF: Background
Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) is being explored for dynamic measurements like inferior vena cava collapsibility index (IVC-CI) and left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral (LVOT-VTI) to guide anesthesiologists in predicting fluid responsiveness in the preoperative period and in treating post-induction hypotension (PIH) with varying accuracy. Methods: In this prospective, observational study on included 100 adult patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia, the LVOT-VTI and IVC-CI measurements were performed in the preoperative room 15 minutes prior to surgery, and PIH was measured for 20 minutes in the post-induction period. Results: The incidence of PIH was 24%. The area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy of the two techniques at 95% confidence interval was 0.613, 30.4%, 93.3%, 58.3%, 81.4%, 73.6% for IVC-CI and 0.853, 83.3%, 80.3%, 57.1%, 93.8%, 77.4% for LVOT-VTI, respectively. In multivariate analysis, the cutoff value for IVC-CI was >51.5 and for LVOT-VTI it was ≤17.45 for predicting PIH with odd ratio [OR] of 8.491 (P=0.025) for IVCCI and OR of 17.427 (P<0.001) for LVOT. LVOT-VTI assessment was possible in all the patients, while 10% of patients were having poor window for IVC measurements. Conclusions: We recommend the use of POCUS using LVOT-VTI or IVC-CI to predict PIH, to decrease the morbidity of patients undergoing surgery. Out of these, we recommend LVOT-VTI measurements as it has showed a better diagnostic accuracy (77.4%) with no failure rate.

Gastroenterology
The diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography over manual aspiration for gastric reserve volume estimation in critically ill patients: Rahul Sharma, Ravi Kant Dogra, Jyoti Pathania, Arti Sharma; Acute Crit Care. 2023;38(1):134-141. Published online February 22, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4266/acc.2022.00955

1,647 View
104 Download
2 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Background
Although gastric reserve volume (GRV) is a surrogate marker of gastrointestinal dysfunction and feeding intolerance, there is ambiguity in its estimation due to problems associated with its measurement. Introduction of point-of-care ultrasound as a tool for anesthetists kindled interest in its use for GRV estimation. Methods: In this prospective observational study, we recruited 57 critically ill patients and analyzed 586 samples of GRV obtained by both ultrasonography (USG) and manual aspiration. Results: The analysis showed that USG-guided GRV was significantly correlated (r=0.788, P<0.001) and in positive agreement with manual aspiration based on Bland-Altman plot, with a mean difference of 8.50±14.84 (95% confidence interval, 7.389–9.798). The upper and lower limits of agreement were 37.7 and –20.5, respectively, within the ±1.96 standard deviation (P<0.001). The respective sensitivity and positive predictive value, specificity and negative predictive value, and area under the curve of USG for feeding intolerance were 66.67%, 98.15%, and 0.82%, with 96.49% diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions: Ultrasonographic estimation of GRV was positively, significantly correlated and in agreement with the manual aspiration method and estimated feeding intolerance earlier. Routine use of gastric USG could avoid clinical situations where feeding status is unclear and there is high risk of aspiration and could become a standard practice of critical care.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Gastrointestinal function in critically ill patients
Annika Reintam Blaser, Kaspar F. Bachmann, Adam M. Deane
Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care.2023; 26(5): 463. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search