Sanfilippo Filippo, La Via Luigi, Dezio Veronica, Amelio Paolo, Genoese Giulio, Franchi Federico, Messina Antonio, Robba Chiara, Noto Alberto
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, A.O.U. Policlinico-San Marco, Site "Policlinico G. Rodolico", Via S. Sofia N 78, 95123, Catania, Italy.
School of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, University Hospital "G. Rodolico", University of Catania, 95123, Catania, Italy.
Intensive Care Med Exp. 2023 Jul 10;11(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s40635-023-00529-z.
Variation of inferior vena cava (IVC) is used to predict fluid-responsiveness, but the IVC visualization with standard sagittal approach (SC, subcostal) cannot be always achieved. In such cases, coronal trans-hepatic (TH) window may offer an alternative, but the interchangeability of IVC measurements in SC and TH is not fully established. Furthermore, artificial intelligence (AI) with automated border detection may be of clinical value but it needs validation.
Prospective observational validation study in mechanically ventilated patients with pressure-controlled mode. Primary outcome was the IVC distensibility (IVC-DI) in SC and TH imaging, with measurements taken both in M-Mode or with AI software. We calculated mean bias, limits of agreement (LoA), and intra-class correlation (ICC) coefficient.
Thirty-three patients were included. Feasibility rate was 87.9% and 81.8% for SC and TH visualization, respectively. Comparing imaging from the same anatomical site acquired with different modalities (M-Mode vs AI), we found the following IVC-DI differences: (1) SC: mean bias - 3.1%, LoA [- 20.1; 13.9], ICC = 0.65; (2) TH: mean bias - 2.0%, LoA [- 19.3; 15.4], ICC = 0.65. When comparing the results obtained from the same modality but from different sites (SC vs TH), IVC-DI differences were: (3) M-Mode: mean bias 1.1%, LoA [- 6.9; 9.1], ICC = 0.54; (4) AI: mean bias 2.0%, LoA [- 25.7; 29.7], ICC = 0.32.
In patients mechanically ventilated, AI software shows good accuracy (modest overestimation) and moderate correlation as compared to M-mode assessment of IVC-DI, both for SC and TH windows. However, precision seems suboptimal with wide LoA. The comparison of M-Mode or AI between different sites yields similar results but with weaker correlation. Trial registration Reference protocol: 53/2022/PO, approved on 21/03/2022.
下腔静脉(IVC)变异用于预测液体反应性,但采用标准矢状面入路(SC,肋下)时,并非总能实现IVC可视化。在这种情况下,冠状面经肝(TH)窗口可能是一种替代方法,但SC和TH中IVC测量的互换性尚未完全确立。此外,具有自动边界检测功能的人工智能(AI)可能具有临床价值,但需要验证。
对采用压力控制模式的机械通气患者进行前瞻性观察性验证研究。主要结局是SC和TH成像中的IVC扩张性(IVC-DI),通过M型或AI软件进行测量。我们计算了平均偏差、一致性界限(LoA)和组内相关系数(ICC)。
纳入33例患者。SC和TH可视化的可行性率分别为87.9%和81.8%。比较同一解剖部位采用不同方式(M型与AI)获取的图像,我们发现IVC-DI存在以下差异:(1)SC:平均偏差-3.1%,LoA[-20.1;13.9],ICC = 0.65;(2)TH:平均偏差-2.0%,LoA[-19.3;15.4],ICC = 0.65。比较同一方式但不同部位(SC与TH)获得的结果时,IVC-DI差异为:(3)M型:平均偏差1.1%,LoA[-6.9;9.1],ICC = 0.54;(4)AI:平均偏差2.0%,LoA[-25.7;29.7],ICC = 0.32。
在机械通气患者中,与IVC-DI的M型评估相比,AI软件在SC和TH窗口中均显示出良好的准确性(轻度高估)和中等相关性。然而,LoA较宽,精度似乎欠佳。不同部位之间M型或AI的比较产生相似结果,但相关性较弱。试验注册参考方案:53/2022/PO,于2022年3月21日批准。