Advertisment Fosfocin
Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine
An open access publication of ISCCM™ 
 
Users online: 860 
     Home | Login 
  About Current Issue Archive Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Etcetera Contact  
  Navigate Here 
 »   Next article
 »   Previous article
 »   Table of Contents

 Resource Links
 »   Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
 »   Citation Manager
 »   Access Statistics
 »   Reader Comments
 »   Email Alert *
 »   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed55    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded36    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 

 RESEARCH ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 21  |  Issue : 11  |  Page : 726--732

The PCQP score for volume status of acutely ill patients: Integrating vascular pedicle width, caval index, respiratory variability of the qrs complex and R wave amplitude


1 Tuberculosis and Lung Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
2 Road Traffic Injury Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
3 Emergency Medicine Research Team, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
4 Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Ata Mahmoodpoor
General ICU, Shohada Hospital, El-Goli Street, Tabriz
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijccm.IJCCM_275_17

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Techniques for measuring volume status of critically ill patients include invasive, less invasive, or noninvasive ones. The present study aims to assess the accuracy of noninvasive techniques for measuring volume status of critically ill patients. Patients and Methods: A total of 111 critically ill patients admitted to the emergency department and undergoing central venous catheterization were included in the study. Five parameters were measured including vascular pedicle width (VPW), diameter of inferior vena cava, caval index, respiratory changes in QRS, and P wave amplitude. Patients with risk factors which could decrease the accuracy of central venous pressure (CVP) value were excluded from study. We compared these parameters with static CVP parameter. Finally, based on the afore-mentioned parameters, PCQP role in criteria was designed. Results: In detecting loss of circulating blood volume, area under the curve of VPW was 0.92 (90%, confidence interval [CI]: 0.85–0.99), diameter of inferior vena cava was 0.82 (90%, CI: 0.72–0.91), caval index was 0.9 (90%, CI: 0.82–0.98), and changes in QRS and P waves were 0.88 (95%, CI: 0.81–0.95) and 0.73 (95%, CI: 0.63–0.82), respectively. PCQP role in criteria was designed according to these parameters, and at its best cutoff point (score 6), VPW had a sensitivity of 97.4% (95%, CI: 84.57–99.99) and specificity of 83.6% (95%, CI: 72.65–90.86) for the detection of loss of circulating blood volume (<8 cmH2O). Conclusion: PCQP score could be a reliable and noninvasive technique for the assessment of volume status in critically ill patients.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article

Online since 7th April '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow