PLoS One. 2025 May 9;20(5):e0310462. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310462. eCollection 2025.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Existing guidelines emphasize the importance of initial fluid resuscitation therapy in sepsis management. However, in previous meta-analyses, there have been inconsistencies in differentiating between spontaneously breathing and mechanically ventilated septic patients.
OBJECTIVE: To consolidate the literature on the predictive accuracy of changes in the inferior vena cava diameter (∆IVC) for fluid responsiveness in septic patients.
METHODS: The Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed, Wanfang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical (CBM) and VIP (Weipu) databases were comprehensively searched. Statistical analyses were performed with Stata 15.0 software and Meta-DiSc 1.4.
RESULTS: Twenty-one research studies were deemed suitable for inclusion. The sensitivity and specificity of ∆ IVC were 0.84 (95% CI 0.76, 0.90) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.80, 0.91), respectively. With respect to the distensibility of the inferior vena cava (dIVC), the sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI 0.68, 0.86), and the specificity was 0.82 (95% CI 0.73, 0.89). For collapsibility of the inferior vena cava (cIVC), the sensitivity and specificity values were 0.92 (95% CI 0.83, 0.96) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.86, 0.97), respectively.
CONCLUSION: The results indicated that ∆IVC is as a dependable marker for fluid responsiveness in sepsis patients. dIVC and cIVC also exhibited high levels of accuracy in predicting fluid responsiveness in septic patients.
PMID:40344560 | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0310462
