Intensive Care Medicine Experimental (Apr 2023)

Assessment of the inferior vena cava collapsibility from subcostal and trans-hepatic imaging using both M-mode or artificial intelligence: a prospective study on healthy volunteers

  • Filippo Sanfilippo,
  • Luigi La Via,
  • Veronica Dezio,
  • Cristina Santonocito,
  • Paolo Amelio,
  • Giulio Genoese,
  • Marinella Astuto,
  • Alberto Noto

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40635-023-00505-7
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 11, no. 1
pp. 1 – 12

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Purpose Assessment of the inferior vena cava (IVC) respiratory variation may be clinically useful for the estimation of fluid-responsiveness and venous congestion; however, imaging from subcostal (SC, sagittal) region is not always feasible. It is unclear if coronal trans-hepatic (TH) IVC imaging provides interchangeable results. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) with automated border tracking may be helpful as part of point-of-care ultrasound but it needs validation. Methods Prospective observational study conducted in spontaneously breathing healthy volunteers with assessment of IVC collapsibility (IVCc) in SC and TH imaging, with measures taken in M-mode or with AI software. We calculated mean bias and limits of agreement (LoA), and the intra-class correlation (ICC) coefficient with their 95% confidence intervals. Results Sixty volunteers were included; IVC was not visualized in five of them (n = 2, both SC and TH windows, 3.3%; n = 3 in TH approach, 5%). Compared with M-mode, AI showed good accuracy both for SC (IVCc: bias − 0.7%, LoA [− 24.9; 23.6]) and TH approach (IVCc: bias 3.7%, LoA [− 14.9; 22.3]). The ICC coefficients showed moderate reliability: 0.57 [0.36; 0.73] in SC, and 0.72 [0.55; 0.83] in TH. Comparing anatomical sites (SC vs TH), results produced by M-mode were not interchangeable (IVCc: bias 13.9%, LoA [− 18.1; 45.8]). When this evaluation was performed with AI, such difference became smaller: IVCc bias 7.7%, LoA [− 19.2; 34.6]. The correlation between SC and TH assessments was poor for M-mode (ICC = 0.08 [− 0.18; 0.34]) while moderate for AI (ICC = 0.69 [0.52; 0.81]). Conclusions The use of AI shows good accuracy when compared with the traditional M-mode IVC assessment, both for SC and TH imaging. Although AI reduces differences between sagittal and coronal IVC measurements, results from these sites are not interchangeable.

Keywords